On 2/8/12 05:54 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker <f...@cisco.com > <mailto:f...@cisco.com>> wrote: > > The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - > in large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second > WGLC, in which you again declined to comment, although you may have > seen Lorenzo's comments, which were picked up in a November version > of the draft. Ralph and Jari finally cleared their "discuss" ballots > a couple of weeks ago, and we are having a second IETF last call. > > I'd like to understand your objective here. I know that you don't > care for the draft, and at least at one point took it as a > somewhat-personal attack. Is your objective to prevent the draft's > publication entirely, or do you think that there is value in > publishing it given a productive response to this comment? At what > point are you willing to either participate in the public dialog or > choose to not comment at all? > > > Ok, let me see if I can rephrase Erik's objection. > > The draft needs to take World IPv6 Launch into account, because it's a > key piece of the puzzle. > > We can't publish an RFC on how to transition content to IPv6 if the RFC > ignores the event when 5 of the top 10 websites in the world (and > probably many more) will permanently enable IPv6 for everyone.
Ops is not marketing. If you're saying some flag day makes the contents of the document no longer operationally relevant after a given date, I'll take the point but disagree. The document in it's present form has a wider audience than the operators at 5 of the ton 10 websites. > Cheers, > Lorenzo > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
