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