RE: Review requested: draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt

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

If we accept this we need to move on all mechanisms not just Teredo.  I
support moving forward on all of them.  PS is still unclear to me and I
thought we were going to suggest Experimental RFC?

Thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 5:18 PM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: huitema@microsoft.com
> Subject: Review requested: draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt
> 
> (co-chair hat on)
> 
> The WG rough consensus, measured in May, was for going 
> forward with Teredo.
> 
> A revised version of the specification,
> draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt, was recently submitted.  
> There has been little review of it, and it is important to 
> move forward from here.
> 
> It is (still, unfortunately) open whether such specifications 
> should be adopted as v6ops items (or at some other WG, 
> or...), so as we can't really hold a WGLC on a document which 
> is not yet a WG document, we'll have to improvise...
> 
> Please review draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt by two weeks, 
> 2nd Juldy (just like you would review a document going for 
> WGLC) send the feedback to the list.
> 
> The current understanding of the category is Proposed 
> Standard, but there has been some debate of this as well.
> 
> You are also encouraged to review:
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/microsoft-ipr-draft-huitema-v6ops
> -teredo.txt
> to see if this is a problem for you.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> (co-chair hat off)
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
> 
> 
> 
>