On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote: > Speaking only for myself, while I like solutions that help v4, I do not see > a problem with solving the architectural problem only, or first, for v6.
Joel, Regardless of whether you see a problem with the idea, and despite the alleged consensus for it, fixing the problem for IPv6 first is not, in fact, what any of us are actually doing. The supposed consensus was false. If there was a consensus from that debate, it was that a solution process that failed to also resolve the problem for IPv6 would not be acceptable. Nor surprisingly, this latter statement reflects our behavior since. The point I endeavored to make to Tony is that he has repeated the mistake of declaring a false consensus and is likely reap the same results, namely damaged credibility and further difficulty shepherding us researchers into a coherent team. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
