Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

On Dec 3, 2014, at 7:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter 
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

> On 04/12/2014 16:06, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Bob Hinden 
> > <bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> > > We have effectively gotten to the point of depletion of IPV4 addresses, and 
> > > the world has not come to an end.  I don't see any need to reclassify this 
> > > RFC as a standard and think doing so would cause confusion in the community 
> > > and be harmful to the Internet.
> > If you think this shouldn't be a standard, why didn't you object when MAP-E, 
> > MAP-T and Lightweight 4over6 were last-called?
> I can't answer for Bob, but those documents were the result of
> a pretty laborious rough consensus process in Softwire and would
> have been very hard to challenge that consensus. Also, if I'm
> not mistaken, those solutions all explicitly involve transport
> of IPv4 via IPv6 (as does XLAT464); A+P is just orthgonal to IPv6.
+1

Bob

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail