Sign in
Version 5.13.0, 2015-03-25
Report a bug

IPv6 Tunnel Broker with the Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP)
RFC 5572

(was Discuss)
No Objection
(was Discuss)
No Record

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Summary: Needs a YES.

[Cullen Jennings]

Comment (2007-03-06 for -)

I am in favor of 3 - this document is way under-specified and claims things
about NAT traversal that are not true. I see it causing harm by convincing
people that this solves problems that softwire does not when in reality it does
not solve the problems.

[Magnus Westerlund]

Comment (2007-03-08 for -)

I also are in favor of note 3. I don't think we need even more NAT traversal
solutions, especially one that are incomplete and badly charaterized. Although
this solution may not be one of the more useful as it doesn't specify IPv4 over
IPv4 tunnels.