Subject: RE: Proposed way forward with the transition mechanisms

From: "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:35:38 -0400

> And remember, ISATAP -- as implemented -- is going to be published as
 > Experimental RFC even if it didn't go for Standards Track 

=> "As implemented"? or do you mean "as documented"? I hope
we're not deciding this based on what we think implementations
will do.

   -- it's
 > already in the RFC editor's queue.  

=> That's a mistake I think. 

Hesham

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:23:17 +0300 (EEST)

> we're not deciding this based on what we think implementations

The ISATAP spec, submitted to the RFC-editor, is supposed to describe 
ISATAP as it has been implemented by the people.   If that isn't 
correct, the spec needs to be fixed.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings