Subject: (ngtrans) ngtrans w.g. Last Call on BGP-TUNNEL-04 for PS

From: Bob Fink <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 07:42:42 -0800

This is an ngtrans working group last call for comments on advancing the 
following document as a Proposed Standard:

	Title		: Connecting IPv6 Domains across IPv4 Clouds with BGP
	Author(s)	: J. De Clercq, G. Gastaud, T. Nguyen,
                           D. Ooms, S. Prevost, F. Le Faucheur
	Filename	: draft-ietf-ngtrans-bgp-tunnel-04.txt
	Pages		: 12
	Date		: 14-Jan-02

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ngtrans-bgp-tunnel-04.txt>

<http://www.6bone.net/ngtrans/ngtrans_project-status.html#BGP-TUNNEL>

Please send substantive comments to the ngtrans mailing list, and minor
editorial comments to the authors.  This last call period will end two
weeks from today on February 27, 2002.

Alain Durand / Bob Fink/ Tony Hain

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:03:19 +0200 (EET)

> following document as a Proposed Standard:

How can there be a last call before the WG and WG chairs have seen (or
have we? -- someone please comment!) an adequate response to:

--8<--
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 10:53:39 -0700
From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
To: ngtrans <[email-masked]>
Subject: (ngtrans) BGP-tunnels and connect-ipv6-igp

Stepping back a little, we now have 2 set of proposals to address the
issue of scaling tunnel set-up during transition.

a) 6to4 + isatap                                                     
b) BGP-tunnel + connect-ipv6-igp                 

As work in the general direction of a) has started long time ago and is 
well
on its way, I would like to suggest the authors of b) to come up with some
rationale/applicability statements that would help the working group
to understand better how to position b) in regards to a)
--8<--

???

Stumped.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:36:28 +0200 (EET)

> weeks from today on February 27, 2002.

I haven't had time to read this throughly again, but quite a few comments
have been made since -04 but before the last call, so a new draft would
have been appropriate.

Is this really standards track material?  Wouldn't experimental or
informational be better?  For example, encapsulation type isn't specified
or signalled, so I fail to see how implementation and practise would be
interoperable (clearly, in one domain manual configuration to one
encapsulation type is required, but what about if there is a border router
between two clouds with different encapsulation) -- or perhaps this needs
clarification?