On 8/19/13 3:48 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
* The empirical data that was gathered and the conclusions from which
that where published as RFC 6686 are IMNSHO flawed and rushed in
that they
set far too optimistic deadlines for adaptation before declaring
failure.
I think you're going to need substantially more explanation (and
perhaps some data) to make a convincing case that RFC 6686 needs to be
reconsidered, thereby affecting this last call. The above states a
conclusion, but provides no data or explanation. I don't know how to
evaluation this.
Of course, I meant, "I don't know how to *evaluate* this."
From earlier exchanges about this concern, the assertion that I recall
is that 7 years is not long enough, to determine whether a feature will
be adopted. That is, failure to gain deployment traction after 7 years
from the time of publication should not be taken as a sufficient waiting
period.
I do not recall anyone (else) showing support for that view, but
certainly not any substantial constituency.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net