RE: POLL: Consensus for moving forward with Teredo?

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

Teredo is very baked and all of them have been implemented by two
independent parties (Teredo, ISATAP, DSTM, Tunnel Broker).  I think we
should stick to Pekkas categories.  What level a spec moves to is
another question completely.  I think we should begin working on all of
them as they are being used now and in response to real RFPs by
customers.  

/jim  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alain Durand
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 7:00 PM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: POLL: Consensus for moving forward with Teredo?
> 
> 
> On Apr 30, 2004, at 10:32 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > The options regarrding Teredo at this stage seem to be:
> >
> >  a) Go forward with Teredo, hone the deployment implications in the
> >     unmanaged analysis in parallel (if and as appropriate),
> >
> >  b) Conclude that there is no sufficiently strong need for 
> Teredo, and
> >     not support its advancement (for PS) at this stage, or
> >
> >  c) Decide that we need to analyze the scenarios or deployment more
> >     before being able to make a decision.
> >
> >     If so, please state where you believe more analysis is needed..
> >     and volunteer if possible :)
> 
> There is an alternative:
> 
> d) publish it as Experimental.
> 
> There is code out there, deployable by the millions, so it is 
> good to document it formally. However, for the reasons Marc 
> gave, I'm not convinced that PS is the right approach.
> Actually, I would suggest that Isatap be published as 
> Experimental along Terredo, for the same reasons.
> 
> 	- Alain.
> 
> 
> 
>