Hi Michel,
At 04:39 PM 4/3/2003 -0800, Michel Py wrote:
Unfortunately this requires people that are for IPv6 and not against and that are willing to compromise. I regret to report that at this point I count only three: Bob Hinden, you and me.
I find this statement highly offensive, and I completely disagree with your assessment of the IPv6 WG.
There are scores, probably hundreds, of people who care about IPv6 and want it to succeed. We have spent years working on difficult issues, sometimes disagreeing, but always finding a way forward. We may currently have some disagreement regarding the value of site-local unicast addressing, but we _will_ find a way to work through this issue.
It should be possible for us to disagree on a technical issue without questioning each other's integrity, competence or commitment to IPv6.
The classic decision making process goes:
Disagree -> Decide -> Commit -> Execute
We are currently in the "disagree" stage for site-locals, so it is good that people are voicing their own opinions and stating technical reasons to support those positions. We are trying to drive towards a decision. And, once we do make a decision about how to proceed, I believe that it will be followed (as difficult decisions in IPv6 always have been) by a high degree of commitment and execution.
Margaret
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
