Subject: Re: isatap-07 draft offered as last-call

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2002 08:29:32 -0500

Hi Fred,

>Specifically, Harald's message states:
>
> > There are several ways around this if you want things published:
> > - Publish through other mechanisms than the RFC process
> > - Publish as Experimental RFC
> > - Plead with the ADs to sponsor the mechanisms for standards track 
> based on their obvious merits
>(identifying the mechanisms they obsolete)
>
>Thus, I am seeking to publish as an Experimental RFC and also pleading 
>with the ADs to
>sponsor the mechanism for standards track based on obsoleting RFC 2529 
>(6over4).

I'm not quite sure what Harald meant in his message, and you may want to ask
him for a clarification.  Although the standards are lower for publishing
a document as experimental, I think that experimental documents basically go
through the same process (with somewhat less review, perhaps) as standards
track document.

This WG is not chartered to work anything (informational, experimental, BCP or
standards track) that isn't explicitly in our charter...  ISATAP is not 
currently
in our charter, and won't be added to our charter unless/until it is 
identified
as a necessary transition mechanism as part of our deployment 
scenarios/analysis
work. So, at this particular point in time, discussion of ISATAP (and any
publication of this document, experimental or otherwise) is out-of-scope for
the v6ops WG.

I know that folks aren't happy with this situation, and I realize that there
are several documents stuck in a similar state (Teredo, DSTM, etc.).  The best
way to get the necessary transition mechanisms un-stuck is to work on the
deployment scenario/analysis documents (by reviewing them and providing
detailed feedback, submitting text, etc.), and to help drive them to completion
as soon as possible.  Of course, as part of this process, we may also find
that some of our mechanisms (either the ones that have been published as RFCs
or the ones that haven't) are not necessary and/or require updates to meet
the needs of the expected transition scenarios.

There are also some other publication options available outside the v6ops WG,
including:

         - Publishing these documents elsewhere (through an industry
                 consortium, another standards body, or your own website).
         - Submitting them to the RFC editor as individual submissions.
                 However, this path may just lead to the documents being
                 referred to the IESG and referred back to the v6ops WG,
                 where we will be unable to make a determination regarding
                 their merit until we have completed our deployment
                 scenarios and analysis work...

BTW, pleading with ADs (for anything) is probably more likely to be effective
if you discuss your issue with them directly, rather than expecting them to
find your request on the mailing list.

Margaret