Enterprise Analysis DSTM Issue

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

WG Members,

For DSTM we are going to discuss as authors what we want to do here per
Fred's mail telling us we could go away if we leave it in the spec, at
least my read of his mail. This will take us a few weeks as some are on
summer vacation.

For your information if your new.  DSTM had a minimum of two years IETF
NGTRANS working group discussion, and had discussion before that as the
AIIH proposal.  In fact the authors reduced and altered the DSTM
protocol several times per the NGTRANS Chairs input over the years and
the WG.  

There will be a series of DSTM specifications sent for Experimental RFC
in the next 6 months.  At the same time there will be a new industry
focus on DSTM, that will be quite rigorous, and produce a set of
deployment guidelines including DSTM for the IPv6 Transition.  

I realize DSTM is not an Experimental RFC now, but that was because we
were not sure best path to move the work until about 3 weeks ago.  But
ISATAP is still awaiting Experimental RFC, was only discussed in NGTRANS
too, not v6ops, and we still need a Tunnel Set Up Protocol.  Yet both of
these are fine to reference in the spec?  If true, is that "fair".

DSTM is a mechanism that is part of the plan for several enterprises, it
is a valid reference.

No need to respond or support this mail that is not its purpose.  But I
want you the WG members to understand our decision or my "individual"
decision when it is made in the next few weeks.

Also it would have been nice if this could have been brought up when I
asked are there other issues in person at the Paris IETF last week.  We
could have all met that care in person then at that IETF event.

/jim