Re: [v6ops] 464XLAT Trial Deployment Report

Le 2012-02-07 à 10:23, t.petch a écrit :

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "james woodyatt" <jhw@apple.com>
> To: "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo@google.com>
> Cc: "v6ops v6ops WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 7:33 PM
>> On Feb 5, 2012, at 23:53 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>> 
>>> As to which WG it belongs in, I don't know.
>> 
>> I would say that if there is a WG where this belongs, then it would be BEHAVE
> and not V6OPS.  I fail to see why this needs a working group to develop any
> further.  Wouldn't the individual submission track be more appropriate?

+1 

> When I have suggested an individual submission, I get told that it costs the
> IETF more, that is that the necessary evils of publishing are amortised across a
> wider spectrum of people when a WG is involved, so unless an AD is really
> burning with desire to support an individual submission, then a WG is the way to
> go.
> 
> V6OPS or BEHAVE?  I see the latter as more limited, more focussed in scope, so
> would go for V6OPS.
> 
> Is it worth publishing as an RFC?  Yes, the IETF traditionally neglects
> operators, favouring 'manufacturers' so this would help redress the balance.

As individual submission and experimental, yes.
For anything else, Softwire would be the place  (the overlap with stateless solutions studied there is obvious).

RD

> 
> Tom Petch
> 
>> --
>> j h woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops