[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC4214 to standard?
Brian,
Teredo (RFC4380) is actually a proposed standard. So, I think that deals at
least 50% of you can of worms... ;)
Anyways, to my understanding getting something to proposed standard does not
need wide deployment or great level of usage. You need something like that
when moving from proposed upwards. So, in that regard I would see this whole
discussion missing the point.
I also agree with FredT that there is some evidence of ISATAP being deployed
(at least as much as TEREDO as it seems to be in the XP stacks, and I have
heard that it would be also in Vista - perhaps somebody from Microsoft can
verify that).
I think the main point of the discussion should be if there is enough
experience gathered to move ISATAP from experimental to PS. I think the
people who are deploying it might be the best people to answer.
I'm sure that Kurtis and FredB can state then depending the conclusion of
the discussion, if v6ops is the right place, or would individual submission
to the IESG be better if it is decided to go forward at this point.
Cheers,
Jonne.
On 3/26/07 4:53 PM, "ext Brian E Carpenter" <brc@zurich.ibm.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Can you provide some examples of where this is "widely-deployed" so we
>> can judge if it really is ready to move from experimental to standards
>> track.
>
> I'd have similar questions about Teredo and DSTM, if we are
> reopening the discussion on ISATAP.
>
> I believe we have already loaded stack implementors and
> network operations staff with enough coexistence standards
> to support. As we saw in Prague, the operational effect of
> your favourite coexistence protocol can even be embarassing.
>
> Brian
>
--
Jonne Soininen
Nokia
Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: jonne.soininen@nokia.com