>> If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak up soon. i object. as measured on the real internet, not the ietf bar, 6to4 sucks caterpillar snot. it is damaging to the users and to the users' view of ipv6.
> 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. perhaps that minority was also vocal in the back room > 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, yes, but that will be a year from now. in the ietf, delay is one form of death. > 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" :-) this is nutso. but this is normal. welcome to the ietf randy _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
