Re: POLL: Consensus for moving forward with Teredo?

[Juan Rodriguez Hervella <jrh@it.uc3m.es>]

I support option a) , giving the same reasons that 
Pekka has already pointed out.

Bye.


On Friday 30 April 2004 19:32, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (co-chair hat on)
>
> As identified in the scenarios analysis at IETF59 and in
> draft-savola-v6ops-tunneling-01.txt, there appears to a need which
> cannot be filled by another mechanism for Teredo at least in one major
> Unmanaged scenario.
>
> Is there rough consensus to move forward with Teredo? (i.e., to adopt
> it as WG document in this WG or elsewhere, for Proposed Standard.)
>
> The main issue raised has been to call for a more extensive analysis
> for the deployment implications of native, 6to4, and Teredo.  There is
> already discussion of this in the Unmanaged Analysis document.  There
> seemed to be very little energy or interest in the WG to drive this
> much further.
>
> 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 :)
>
> If you have an opinion, please state it within a week, i.e., by next
> Friday, 7th May.
>
> Thanks!
>
> (co-chair hat off)

-- 
******
JFRH
******

It is easier to be a "humanitarian" than to render your own country its
proper due; it is easier to be a "patriot" than to make your community
a better place to live in; it is easier to be a "civic leader" than to
treat your own family with loving understanding; for the smaller the
focus of attention, the harder the task.
		-- Sydney J. Harris