RE: DSTM

["Christian Huitema" <huitema@windows.microsoft.com>]

> But when I saw the mail Teredo was going to move without doing
finishing
> all scenarios/analysis docs I thought we were opening the flood gates
> for all mechanisms.  I could be wrong?  But all mechanisms should be
> applied to that entire set of work efforts.

I have two issues with this statement.

First, I don't think we should wait until *all* scenario documents are
completed before we standardize or publish *any* new transition
technology. The bar ought to be lower: we should progress a transition
technology if we agree that it is clearly needed by at least one
scenario. Otherwise, we could keep inventing new scenarios, and we would
always have to wait until yet another scenario analysis is completed.

Second, we have to define what "completed" means. What is the decision
point? We have actually all but completed the "unmanaged networks"
evaluation: we went through the working group last call, and the
document is now on the IESG plate. Based on this scenario, doing work on
Teredo is not spurious.

Now, for the record, I am a strong believer in letting a thousand RFC
bloom and letting the market decide. The IETF WG should not be in the
business of evaluating business cases. We should definitely work on
Teredo, and also ISATAP, DSTM, and tunnel brokers.

-- Christian Huitema