Re: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, EricLKlein wrote:
> > 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.

Lucky for you -- it's already there and in WG last call:  
draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-00.txt :-)

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

See above.  The point is probably whether folks agree (or not) whether
such a protocol would be sufficient to solve their problems.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings