On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 15:21, Cameron Byrne
<cb(_dot_)list6(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Great, back to square one.
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. But perhaps I missed some discussion.
I saw the same thing. It is a shame that work that directly removes
barriers to REAL ipv6 deployment gets shouted down by a few people not
involved in REAL ipv6 deployment.
As a member of that "small but vocal minority" I think you are being a
little unfair here; some of us are working quite hard in getting IPv6
deployed in a number of different places.
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.
And, FWIW, I have no objections to having it off by default. In fact, I
welcome that.
/TJ
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf