Fwd: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts

I really don't appreciate the question I put forward being moved to a 
place I am not a participant in. Do you have any intent to return an 
answer to me, or do I have to hunt around for a way to enter a BOF I 
have no intention of contributing to?

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
> Date: April 7, 2005 11:54:40 AM PDT
> Subject: Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts
>
> ------- Blind-Carbon-Copy
>
> To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
> cc: "v6tc@ietf.org" <v6tc@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts
> In-Reply-To: Message from jordi.palet@consulintel.es
>    of "Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:30:53 +0200." 
> <BE78FA5D.F1CA3%jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 14:54:40 -0400
> From: Thomas Narten <narten@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
>
> Note: v6ops bcc'ed, followups in v6tc please.
>
>> First of all, I think is a very good question to know if the v6tc is 
>> really
>> dead, or what, unless I've missed something, there was not any 
>> message about
>> this. I was about to ask soon in v6tc list (copied now).
>
> To be honest, I'm not entirely sure myself. And this is after a rather
> lot of hallway conversation in Minneapolis.
>
> Truth in advertising: I've always been a bit skeptical of this work,
> and probably continue to be, with the main reason being that I do not
> see a clear/easy/obvious solution here and I worried alot (while I
> still wore an AD hat) about starting a WG that wouldn't be able to
> actually come to closure and complete useful work. It is not enough to
> want a solution -- a solution must also be achievable. (This comment
> applies mostly the "tunnel endpoint discovery problem".)
>
> I do detect that there are folk that want to form a WG and that there
> are some that believe there is a problem here to be solved (that needs
> solving), but so far (AFAIK) the problem hasn't been articulated
> clearly and (still) strikes me as a bit of a moving target.
>
> One (big!) example. There was lots of talk at the BOF and in the
> presentation about the need for low latency, i.e., it was a
> "requirement". And I hear "wireless" mentioned and "3G" at
> approximately the same time. But, my understanding is that 3GPP has
> already decided to go with ISATAP. So, they aren't a customer for this
> work. But if that is the case, where is the real requirement for low
> latency coming from?
>
> Is my understanding correct in this regard?
>
> Thomas
>
> ------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy
>

_______________________________________________
v6tc mailing list
v6tc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc