On 2/8/12 05:54 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
<mailto:fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>> wrote:
The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft -
in large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second
WGLC, in which you again declined to comment, although you may have
seen Lorenzo's comments, which were picked up in a November version
of the draft. Ralph and Jari finally cleared their "discuss" ballots
a couple of weeks ago, and we are having a second IETF last call.
I'd like to understand your objective here. I know that you don't
care for the draft, and at least at one point took it as a
somewhat-personal attack. Is your objective to prevent the draft's
publication entirely, or do you think that there is value in
publishing it given a productive response to this comment? At what
point are you willing to either participate in the public dialog or
choose to not comment at all?
Ok, let me see if I can rephrase Erik's objection.
The draft needs to take World IPv6 Launch into account, because it's a
key piece of the puzzle.
We can't publish an RFC on how to transition content to IPv6 if the RFC
ignores the event when 5 of the top 10 websites in the world (and
probably many more) will permanently enable IPv6 for everyone.
Ops is not marketing.
If you're saying some flag day makes the contents of the document no
longer operationally relevant after a given date, I'll take the point
but disagree.
The document in it's present form has a wider audience than the
operators at 5 of the ton 10 websites.
Cheers,
Lorenzo
_______________________________________________
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