RE: updated v6ops agenda, presentation of way forward

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

Pekka,

Thanks for the response.  No I had not heard that about Teredo status
only that it had went to the IESG so that is good I agree.

I will think about it I am thinking now it might be faster to do this
out of the IETF if a process can be created and support an open
standards view in another body.

Thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 7:43 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: updated v6ops agenda, presentation of way forward
> 
> 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
>