Your comment that "fixing the problem for IPv6 first is not, in fact,
what any of us are actually doing" is not, in fact, accurate. I know of
several proposals whcih have been presented to the RRG, some of which I
have or am helping with, with take exactly that approach.
Yours,
Joel
William Herrin wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
