On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 20:54:50 +0200
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica
<rbonica(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net> wrote:
- In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS WG
and IETF consensus
If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak up soon.
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.
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 don't object to what has been proposed, yet I object to
"6to4-historic" because I'm an extremely happy anycast 6to4 user and
have been for many years (I just recently looked at the date in the
script I wrote to bring it up, and was quite surprised it was dated
2002).
Unfortunately people do judge books by their cover - if there is an RFC
that says 6to4 is historic, people would likely consider it something
that can't be used. We know it can operate correctly and reliably if it
is configured correctly. If the criteria for declaring a
technology historic is that some people can't operate it correctly and
reliably, then they'll have to be plenty of other -historic RFCs.
Perhaps declaring 6to4 deprecated rather than historic would have a
better chance of consensus.
Please, nobody answer this question with "welcome to the IETF" :-)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf