SUMMARY: Consensus for moving forward with Teredo?

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Hi,

(co-chair hat on)

Thank you for participation.

The chairs judge that there exists rough consensus in the WG for
moving forward with Teredo (option a) below).

However, let's continue to try the address (the best we can) the
concerns raised by those participants with a different opinion.

 Pekka & Jonne

(co-chair hat off)

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
> (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)