Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops WGLC

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fred,

It may seem unusual for an author to comment on their own document,
however in the case of ISATAP at least I am concerned that this new
version may encourage router vendors to build products that do not
provide necessary support for legacy hosts.

In particular, I have come to understand that legacy ISATAP hosts
depend on the router advertising non-link-local IPv6 prefixes on its
ISATAP interface. If a router vendor were to read the recommendations
in this new version of the document, however, they might incorrectly
conclude that the use of non-link-local IPv6 prefixes on ISATAP
interfaces should be deprecated.

This seems like something that could be corrected with the addition
of 1-2 sentences. How would you like to proceed?

Thanks - Fred

________________________________
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:30 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; Ron Bonica
Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops WGLC

This is to initiate a one week working group last call of draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops; it will close a week from Friday. The IESG reviewed the document and asked for changes; we need to be sure we are comfortable with the changes. The diff from the version sent to the IESG last November is at http://tinyurl.com/6dhowhf

Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the list.