Subject: Request to Publish ISATAP

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:12:33 -0500

Hi All,

On December 13th, the OPS and Internet area directors received
a request to sponsor ISATAP as a standards track RFC, obsoleting
the automatic tunneling mechanism specified in RFC 2893 (see
attached).  ISATAP would be submitted to the RFC editor for
publication as an individual submission.

Since that time, ISATAP has been updated.  The newest version
can be found at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-08.txt

Consistent with IESG policy, our area director has asked the
chairs of the v6ops WG whether the publication of this document
would constitute an end-run around the v6ops WG.

The v6ops chairs do believe that the publication of this
document would represent an end-run for two reasons:

	(1) It is proposed that ISATAP would obsolete a portion
		of RFC 2893.  The v6ops WG is currently updating
		RFC 2893, and it will be our decision whether or
		not to remove the automatic tunneling mechanism.
		ISATAP does not, and should not, obsolete that
		mechanism.

	(2) The v6ops WG is currently undergoing a process
		to enumerate and analyze the expected scenarios
		for IPv4 -> IPv4/IPv6 transition, with the
		goal of producing a single, coordinated set
		of transition mechanisms, each of which will
		include appropriate applicability information.
		The publication of a transition mechanism via
		another track, before its applicability is
		analyzed, would undermine this effort.

The v6ops chairs will be expressing this opinion to the IESG
in one week.  We wanted the WG to be aware of this situation,
and we would welcome your feedback regarding our position.

Thanks,
Margaret and Itojun
v6ops Chairs

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
   [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
   [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Plea to ADs to sponsor isatap-07 for standards track
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 21:32:48 -0800 (PST)

To the Operations & Management, and Internet Area Directors,

Today (12/13/02), 'draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-07.txt' was submitted
to the Internet Draft registrar. The document is available for
immediate perusal at:

   http://www.geocities.com/osprey67/isatap-07.txt

In the spirit of Harald Alvestrand's 11/19/02 message to v6ops
entitled "On NGTRANS, transition mechanisms and consortia", I am
issuing a plea to the ADs to sponsor this document for standards
track based on the obvious merit that it obsoletes the automatic
tunneling mechanisms specified in RFC 2893.

I look forward to receiving your feedback and guidance
in this matter,

Sincerely,

Fred L. Templin
[email-masked]

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 20:48:21 -0500

Hi Christian,

>I re-read the ISATAP draft, and I am at a loss with this comment. The 
>draft cites 2893 as it goes on using the 2893 nomenclature, but I don't 
>see where it actually proposes to obsolete either 2893, or mechanisms 
>defined in 2893. In any case, the proposition was for an experimental 
>publication; experiments come and go, and certainly do not obsolete 
>standard track recommendations.

If you read the proposal for publication, which I included at the
bottom of the message, it says:

"In the spirit of Harald Alvestrand's 11/19/02 message to v6ops
entitled "On NGTRANS, transition mechanisms and consortia", I am
issuing a plea to the ADs to sponsor this document for standards
track based on the obvious merit that it obsoletes the automatic
tunneling mechanisms specified in RFC 2893."

Please note that it request "standards track" publication and
claims that the document obsoletes the "automatic tunneling
mechanisms specified in RFC 2893".

Does this change your opinion of our position?

Margaret

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 18:12:32 -0800

> 	to correct your understandings -
> 	please see the last part of the previous email Margaret have
sent.
> 	(the part where an email from Fred is quoted verbatim)
> 
> 	- Fred asked to publish it as a standard-track document
> 	- he suggested that ISATAP obsoletes automatic tunnelling in
RFC2893
> 	  (::10.2.2.2).  the chairs does not agree with it and there's
no
> 	  consensus in the wg seen from the chairs

I must say that I oversaw Fred's request for standard track. I was
confused by the reference to Harald's communication, which was
explicitly about experimental RFC. Shame on me!

I agree that the only side-channel should be for publication as
experimental, not standard track; I also agree that experimental
documents should not attempt to obsolete or modify the content of
standards.

I think that the WG should OK experimental publication of ISATAP,
because it will freeze the draft, which would actually help
experimenting. As I wrote in the previous message, we can always publish
a standard track document later.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:42:58 -0500

Margaret,

I concur with Christian Huitema's comments and agree.  This work should
be moved to Experimental RFC so the code can be solidified and tested.
As Christian stated the bar should be far less than standards track.  I
do not support your mail stating Fred wanted to go to standards track
but only experimental.

I also did not see anything in draft -08 that alters Neighbor Discovery
or our base Transitioin Mechanism for auto-tunnels (which I support
being removed).

ISATAP is being deployed in the v6 test beds currently and lets get all
to do the latest experimental RFC and see what develops.  

Regards,
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 7:13 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; Bob Fink; Randy Bush
> Subject: Request to Publish ISATAP
> 
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> On December 13th, the OPS and Internet area directors 
> received a request to sponsor ISATAP as a standards track 
> RFC, obsoleting the automatic tunneling mechanism specified 
> in RFC 2893 (see attached).  ISATAP would be submitted to the 
> RFC editor for publication as an individual submission.
> 
> chairs of the v6ops WG whether the publication of this 
> document would constitute an end-run around the v6ops WG.
> 
> Today (12/13/02), 'draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-07.txt' was 
> submitted to the Internet Draft registrar. The document is 
> available for immediate perusal at:
> 
> 

In the spirit of Harald Alvestrand's 11/19/02 message to v6ops entitled
"On NGTRANS, transition mechanisms and consortia", I am issuing a plea
to the ADs to sponsor this document for standards track based on the
obvious merit that it obsoletes the automatic tunneling mechanisms
specified in RFC 2893.

Sincerely,

Fred L. Templin
[email-masked]

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:51:41 -0500

Hi Jim,

>[...] I

I'm not sure what you mean...  In the only request for publication that
I have seen, Fred explicitly requested standards track publications, and
indicated that the document should obsolete part of RFC 2893.  See his
message attached below.

>to do the latest experimental RFC and see what develops.

Unfortunately, the v6ops WG is not chartered to publish ISATAP as
an experimental RFC.  However, I have sent Fred instructions on
how to ask the RFC editor to publish his individual submission as
an experimental RFC.

Margaret