In all seriousness, would someone please explain the benefits of
this approach in comparison tot he RFC2260 approach?
I have *never* seen a single example and judging by the feedback
the draft has gotten, most network operators see no value to it
whatsoever. That alone should be a strong indication the proposal
should be closely scrutinized before acceptance for any further
circulation.
Simply voting to have a draft moved to RFC without answering
numerous, legitimate questions regarding its value would seem a
very poor method for developing quality technical documents.
Ben
On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 04:27:40PM -0400, Jim Bound wrote:
> Jessica,
>
> Your work should go thru as info RFC I see no reason at all to defend
> your draft any further for that goal. You have done a good job to give
> us a means to work with our ISP customers with IPv6 to set up some
> pilots with IPv6 using BGP+w/v6 to begin testing this and I also will be
> proposing that 3GPP look at your proposal very seriously for IMT2000.
>
> Chairs - again there is no compelling reason past or present to prevent
> this work from moving to info rfc and begin using it as a tool for the
> many IPv6 pilots springing up with our customers.
>
> I am not saying the discussion is 100% complete and I don't think it
> ever will be as we evolve IPv6, but I do think the decision has been
> made, and we should move on here.
>
> regards,
> /jim
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
