Subject: RE: DSTM

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:21:00 -0400

> 
> 	i was under impression that you're asking DSTM to be 
> published without
> 	wait finishing scenario/analysis document, or if DSTM 
> being mentioned 
> 	in the documents.  is my impression incorrrect?

Not what I want at all.  I agree with you and agreed to the process.  

So here is question to the chairs.

First I support Teredo as a required technology as individual and within
Industry roles have requested that Teredo be part of the Moonv6 site
testing which is a growing large native IPv6 network pilot (which will
also support production IPv6 access at some sites soon) and will be
worldwide.

I also supported Teredo moving forward as WG item when asked (not clear
for standards track yet though).

But when I saw the mail Teredo was going to move without doing finishing
all scenarios/analysis docs I thought we were opening the flood gates
for all mechanisms.  I could be wrong?  But all mechanisms should be
applied to that entire set of work efforts.

So I want to ask the Chairs what is the justification to work on Teredo
here and not the other mechanisms?

All this being said I do agree with Tony Hain's mail that we really may
want to revisit our process per scenarios/analysis per that note to the
WG and IESG and believe that is another discussion we must have here too
as a logic check.

Thanks I now see what you mean't by special treatment and that is not
what I ask for or support I just want all things to be fair to all
engineers that support different mechanisms for our users we see
requirements for in the industry and DSTM is one of them.

Regards,
/jim