Keith,
On 2011-06-24 23:47, Keith Moore wrote:
...
1. Working groups often have strong biases and aren't representative of the
whole community. Put another way, a working group often represents only one
side of a tussle, and working groups are often deliberately chartered in such
a way as to minimize the potential for conflict within the group. So when
evaluating standards actions for the whole community, the consensus within a
working group means little. In this particular case, v6ops heavily
represents the interests of operators (who are naturally interested in having
IPv6 run smoothly in the long term) and works against the interests of
applications developers (who are naturally interested in having transition
mechanisms that allow them to ship code that uses IPv6 and an IPv6
programming model regardless of whether the underlying network supports it).
I suspect that operators are *severely* under-represented on this
list (ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org) because it is very noisy and operators have
other
priorities. Most of them are probably unaware of this discussion,
in fact.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf