On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker <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. Cheers, Lorenzo
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
