Re: Request to advance rfc4214(bis) to standards-track through ADsponsorship

[Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>]

On Mar 30, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> You mentioned 'softwire' as a candiate work-group for the rfc4214 
> (bis), but I have some concern for the charter. Since Mark Townsley  
> is the Intenet Area Advisor, I would like to ask Mark to either  
> sponsor the rfc4214(bis) as a shepherding AD or advise as to how  
> this work can be brought into the softwire wg.

then it is somewhere between you, Mark, Ron, and Dave. One could  
argue, for example, that ISP-and-residential-customer doesn't  
describe the whole Internet, and the softwire working group should  
expand its scope to cover non-ISP models. I'll leave that to the four  
of you.

Bottom line, I personally do *not* believe that cherry-picking  
mechanisms and taking them to PS by a bypass process is very smart. I  
would really prefer to see evidence of focused thought that results  
in "PS" meaning "IETF thinks it's an actively good idea". Maybe  
that's just me. But Teredo went to PS bypassing a working group that  
was then in formation, and this bypasses the question for several  
other proposals. I'll leave the analysis of the proposals to someone  
else - that's not my point. My point is that the process by which  
Teredo went to PS was broken, especially given that what shipped with  
Vista is said to be different than that which was standardized, and  
bypassing rational discussion in this case has the same issue,  
especially if what is standardized differs from the several  
implementations that are in the field.

Rather than saying "it's this RFC plus that draft plus a little bit  
of powerpoint", I would prefer to see a single draft that describes  
ISATAP-as-deployed, and if it differs from as-deployed, demonstrates  
agreement from the various implementors to shift their code to  
conform. I think softwires is chartered to do that. If Ron wants it  
done in this WG, he hasn't said as much to me.