RE: updated v6ops agenda, presentation of way forward

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Jim,

Just clarifying a few points below..

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Bound, Jim wrote:
> I want to be sure I read this correctly.  But, the way I read the 
> URLs below, which are all pretty good, there is no place to work on 
> transition mechanisms we all have been waiting to work on since 
> NGTRANS in the IETF. There is no protocol group to work on 
> transition mechanisms other than v6ops.

It was thought to be a good idea not to create a generic protocol 
working group, but rather use very focused ones or individual 
submission as appropriate.  This can of course be discussed during the 
sessions.

> But, the IETF again pokes a sharp stick in the eye of all the authors of
> Teredo, DSTM, ISATAP, and Tunnel Brokers.  Not to good from my view and
> cowardly indirect act, dishonroable, but as it was done in a process we
> can't really blame individuals can we now.

In case you haven't followed closely what has been happening, Teredo 
has already passed IETF Last Call for PS through an individual 
submission, and the WG being proposed seems to fulfill the problem 
space solved by tunnel brokers.

When the proposal was formulating, there was actually initially some 
discussion whether v4-over-v6 should be somehow included there. 
However, it was felt that that would de-focus this work, because we 
don't really know the scenarios and the requirements yet.  When those 
are clearer, it could be then decided what would be the most 
appropriate way to go forward with that work.

But again, this is something that can be discussed.

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