Fernando, >>> There was a message asking Fernando to wait because of a >>> yet-to-be-written draft. :-) In my opinion the dependency would >>> be non-normative. There doesn't seem to be much room for argument >>> there. >> >> the action is on the chairs to initiate the WGLC, and subsequently to >> review the document. given the discussion on the list, we are >> planning a larger session on privacy, tracking and the interface >> identifier in Berlin. > > Why don't you want to ship this document, which seems to be what the wg > is supporting?
have I said that? then please let me clarify. I do think this document should be published. > This document has been suffering from unnecessary delays for almost a > year now. this document was returned to the working group by the AD, after the IETF last call. to me that's a strong hint from the community that we didn't do a good enough job in the working group. before re-sending the document, I want to make sure we have dotted every i and crossed every t. there are other interface-identifier mechanisms proposed, I want to make sure we go back and look at the bigger picture to ensure that we understand all the issues and that we are reasonably confident that we are done. > It's not very encouraging for people to contribute opinions to this wg > if, when most people seem to be arguing one way, but you decide to go > another. I think you have made your point, thank you. cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
