On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:21:36 -0700
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:
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.
I saw the same thing. It is a shame that work that directly removes barriers
to REAL ipv6 deployment
Where is the evidence that 6to4 is holding back native IPv6
deployment?
gets shouted down by a few people not involved in
REAL ipv6 deployment.
How do you know that?
Welcome to the ietf indeed.
Cb
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.
Please, nobody answer this question with "welcome to the IETF" :-)
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf