Is the reasoning behind the decision explained somewhere? My reading of the
threads on the subject in v6ops was that the opposition to 6to4-historic was
a small but vocal minority, and I thought that qualified as rough consensus.
Even if there was rough consensus within v6ops, rough consensus of v6ops does
not equate to rough consensus of the entire IETF community.
Also, why do the author and the chairs think that the new draft will do any
better than 6to4-historic? I would assume that the same people who spoke up
against 6to4-historic will speak up against the new document, and since that
level of opposition was sufficient to prevent the publication of
6to4-historic, it may be sufficient to prevent publication of the new
document as well. If so, we will have spent 3-6 months arguing about it for
naught.
I hope that the author(s) of the new document and the v6ops WG will understand
that their task is to craft a document that can earn community-wide consensus,
not merely the approval of v6ops. As long as the document is brief and
to-the-point, I don't see any problem. I personally don't have any objection
to the notion that 6to4 should be off by default and should require explicit
configuration to enable it.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf