Russ,
Thanks for reviving this topic. As the YAM working group has been finding,
trying to elevate even the most well-established and widely-used protocols to
Full standard remains problematic.
As your Acknowledgments section cites, your proposal nicely adds to the
considerable repertoire
At 23:10 19-06-10, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Thanks for reviving this topic. As the YAM working group has been
finding, trying to elevate even the most well-established and
widely-used protocols to Full standard remains problematic.
It is problematic because there isn't any consensus on what an
On 20/Jun/10 11:53, SM wrote:
The reader will note that neither implementation nor operational
experience is required. In practice, the IESG does require
implementation and/or operational experience prior to granting Proposed
Standard status. Implementors do not treat Proposed Standards as
OK, we really do seem determined to relive the early 2000s...
It seems to me that abolishing the third level is possible, now, because
the handling of I-Ds has been enhanced. IMHO, it is an advantage to
require some experience before giving an I-D the rank of Proposed
Standard. Because I-Ds
On Jun 20, 2010, at 10:36 AM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
I said that right now
it's extremely ill-advised to ship products that have IPv6 support enabled by
default. This is one of the many reasons for this.
I would argue the opposite; people won't turn it on otherwise, due to lack of
I would argue the opposite; people won't turn it on otherwise,
due to lack of knowledge or negligence. What I would also argue is
that the API that opens a session should try all available
address pairs in relatively short order - on the order of
tens of milliseconds between new attempts
In message 20100620195212.4bd395...@berserkly.xs4all.nl, Geert Jan de Groot
writes:
I would argue the opposite; people won't turn it on otherwise,
due to lack of knowledge or negligence. What I would also argue is
that the API that opens a session should try all available
address
On 2010-06-20, at 15:52, Geert Jan de Groot wrote:
IMHO, there's 2 issues:
1. Global IPv6 connectivity doesn't exist - at best, it's a tunnel mess
with bits and pieces continuously falling off, then getting reconnected
again, and nobody seems to care - there's no effort to make
