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

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

(David Kessens) Yes

(Mark Townsley) (was Discuss) Yes

(Ross Callon) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund) No Objection

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.

(Cullen Jennings) No Record

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.