IPv6 Tunnel Broker with the Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP)
RFC 5572
Yes
(David Kessens)
(Mark Townsley)
No Objection
Lars Eggert
(Brian Carpenter)
(Ross Callon)
No Record
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
No Objection
David Kessens Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-03-08)
Unknown
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.
Ross Callon Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Record
No Record
(2007-03-06)
Unknown
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.