On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 15:21, Cameron Byrne <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > As a member of that "small but vocal minority" I think you are being a little unfair here; some of us are working quite hard in getting IPv6 deployed in a number of different places. > 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. > And, FWIW, I have no objections to having it off by default. In fact, I welcome that. /TJ
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
