On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> - In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS WG and IETF consensus >> >> If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak up soon. > > > Great, back to square one. > > Is the reasoning behind the decision explained somewhere? My reading of the threads on the subject in v6ops was that the opposition to 6to4-historic was a small but vocal minority, and I thought that qualified as rough consensus. But perhaps I missed some discussion. >
I saw the same thing. It is a shame that work that directly removes barriers to REAL ipv6 deployment gets shouted down by a few people not involved in REAL ipv6 deployment. Welcome to the ietf indeed. Cb > Also, why do the author and the chairs think that the new draft will do any better than 6to4-historic? I would assume that the same people who spoke up against 6to4-historic will speak up against the new document, and since that level of opposition was sufficient to prevent the publication of 6to4-historic, it may be sufficient to prevent publication of the new document as well. If so, we will have spent 3-6 months arguing about it for naught. > > Please, nobody answer this question with "welcome to the IETF" :-) > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
