By the way, unless there are technical arguments and
credible facts in your responses, I am not going to
send more messages.
--Jessica
--- Jessica Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This has already been answered in the thread of
> discussion on this topic a while back. Please go
> back
> to read the thread before you make any more
> inaccurate
> and irresponsible assertions.
>
> You said most network operators see no value. Where
> did you get this? Who are the most operators? Please
> be more responsible when you make assertions.
>
>
> --Jessica
>
> --- Ben Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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]
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from
> anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
