On 22/01/2014 16:01, Martin Thomson wrote:
On 22 January 2014 13:00, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote:
Is your concern that the sentence "IPv6 is considered the strategic answer"
in section 2 is not stressed enough?
I think that the text in the second paragraph is slightly more loaded.
In particular,
These issues
leave an operator in a precarious position which may lead to the
decision to deploy CGN.
The rest of the section uses similarly loaded:
The ability to replace IPv4-only equipment may be out of the control
of the operator, and even when it's in the administrative control, it
poses both cost and technical challenges as operators build out
massive programs for equipment retirement or upgrade.
"precarious position", "poses both cost and technical challenges", ...
all arguably true, but not strictly neutral.
Understood.
Victor, can you please improve those sentences, to be more neutral.
Also, you might be stress again in that section:
This document does not intend to defend the
merits of CGN.
Regards, Benoit
.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
