RE: approach to moving forward w/ mechanisms [RE: Review requested: draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt]

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

True.  My issue is did we agree on Proposed Standard?  

On the other topic then lets move forward with ISATAP and DSTM.   Both
should be on the IETF 59 agenda too.  I will commit to presenting where
we are with DSTM and updated draft is coming now.  DSTM authors were
under the impression our only option was Experimental.  If Teredo can go
to PS DSTm may want to ask the WG the same question.  It appears the
drill has changed.

Thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] 
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 2:38 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; huitema@microsoft.com
> Subject: approach to moving forward w/ mechanisms [RE: Review 
> requested: draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt]
> 
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> ("If we accept this" -- accept what?  There has already been 
> consensus for Teredo, so I'm not sure what acceptance you're 
> referring to.)
> 
> This is really a more generic topic, so changing the subject.
> 
> The intent all along has been to move on (or work on) the 
> mechanisms with clearly required mainstream scenarios, based 
> on the analysis, etc. -- you know the drill. In other words, 
> there has always been resistance to just moving forward with 
> everything that has been proposed or might be proposed.
> 
> Now, at IETF59 there was consensus for policy that the 
> authors of those proposed mechanisms, even if there was no 
> consensus or clear need for them, *could* publish them as 
> Experimental or Informational through RFC editor if they so 
> wished (including a very strong note that it is not an IETF 
> activity, etc.).  This only applied to the
> *implemented* protocols, as far as they have been 
> implemented. I.e., a way to document an implemented protocol 
> for interoperability.
> 
> The question how to move forward with the required 
> mechanisms, for which there has been consensus, (currently, 
> this list includes Teredo and so-called BGP-tunnel), is 
> separate from that.  That work could be done as invididual 
> submissions through ADs, through a new WG-to-be-formed, or 
> through v6ops.  The category could be PS or maybe 
> experimental.  These issues have not become clear yet, unfortunately.
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
> 
>