Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)
draft-templin-rfc4214bis-05

[Note]: 'On the December 20, 2007 IESG teleconference it was decided to send a "no problem" message to the RFC Editor for this document.' added by Amy Vezza

[Ballot discuss]
4214 was experimental. I don't see why the status should be changed to informational. If this is no longer in use I would be okay with historic, but otherwise I think that either this should still be experimental, or there needs to be an argument made as to why the status has changed.

Also, I am not sure how to put in a ballot when the proposed resolution is not in the tracker. However, assuming that the authors are now in agreement on details, given that this is an update to an existing RFC, I don't think that we should block it (although I think that we can ask that it be experimental).  We might want to add an IESG note if we agree that there is some overlap with softwires.

[Ballot discuss]
It is my understanding that the co-authors are not in agreement on the current text.  I am
concerned about balloting a document without knowing the final text...

[Ballot discuss]
1. In the future, please put the proposed IESG position in the
  ballot text.

2. I'm very uncomfortable rejecting publication of a revision to an
  already published RFC based on conflict with WG activity, unless the
  WG was working on a different update to that same RFC.  I would be
  much more comfortable with an IESG note clarifying the situation.

  If the IESG forces an active already published proposal to stagnate
  by blocking publication of revisions, then we are basically
  sabotaging competing work.  To me, that seems like unethical behavior
  on the part of the IESG.  That's very different from the case of a
  never-published-as-RFC competing proposal where the proposer can
  simply use a non-RFC publication mechanism.

[Note]: 'Mark Proposed note to be:
  3. The IESG thinks that publication is harmful to the IETF work done
      in the softwire WG and recommends not publishing the document at this time.' added by Cullen Jennings