Very well said Lorenzo.
+1
Unless Ron describes exactly one by one real reasons to give up on
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic and majority of v6ops WG agrees with
those reasons IMHO the document should proceed as is.
> It will say that if 6-to-4 is implemented, it must be turned
> off by default.
Last ... if something is turned on or off by default is an
implementation choice and last time I checked IETF was not in business
to mandate any implementation choice.
Thx,
R.
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net
<mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>> 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.
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
v6...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
