ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

2012-02-08 10:03:27
What specifically would you like changed in the draft? Can you suggest text? 

On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker <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.

Cheers,
Lorenzo

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>