On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:46:54 +0100, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote:
Lixia Zhang wrote:
On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Tony Li wrote:
........
(no hat) consensus should be explicitly solicited, rather than
implicitly assumed.
Fair. In any case, we intentionally left the document open as it was
subject to further revisions.
Further, it's not clear that the status of the document is really
relevant to the discussion at hand. Folks are welcome to use it if they
want.
Tony
Hi, Tony, Lixia and all
consensus implies knowledge, that in turn require effort, time and so on
am used to read papers posted on list, tryng to reduce the knowledge-gap
in "quiet-mode".
but if there is need of people saying "yes" or "no" : here i am
about http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/
like to express two notices :
a) IPv4 by itself is the greatest engine that move people and companies to
IPv6; just an example between many, many others.
one IPv4 "public" address can cost upto 2 euro/month (at least in
berlusconi-land) while an IPv6 /48 network is (now) for free.
b) people that had not a first-hand experience of the kind of matters you
are managing, is hardly consensus-able; but many of them will adopt new
solutions for a wide typology of reasons and, at least, for curiosity.
so, in short and for what i understood : ok, the document is good, i agree.
wish you all RRGs a great week.
Alessandro
---
In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there is nothing
left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. RFC 1925
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
