Re: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

["EricLKlein" <ericlklein@softhome.net>]

> > > 6to4 is already Proposed Standard, so its status is not currently
> > > under discussion. Deployment is its own reward.
> >
> > I was only commenting on Jonne's list, which includes tunnel broker (an
> > existing RFC) but not 6to4.   The list should be draft-only, or all
> > mechanisms, I think, to avoid confusion.
>
> It is draft-only, in the sense that the tunnel broker RFC (3053) does
> not document the actual protocol, just the concept.  If we go down
> that path, an additional spec would be needed. - Pekka Savola


It looks to me like the WG should look at an enhanced draft to explain the
additional requirements /specifications / recommendations rather than
letting these pop up with out consideration.

So in short I wonder if we shouldn't look for the actual protocol issues for
tunnel broker.

Eric