On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
Its 'rough' consensus...
I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
publication asap please.
I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the v6ops group. Again, haven't
read all of the messages, but
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
Its 'rough' consensus...
I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
publication asap please.
I'm not even sure it's rough consensus within the v6ops
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
Its 'rough' consensus...
I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
publication asap please.
I'm not even sure it's rough
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
If you disagree the wg chairs conclusions as far as the wg process outcome
and the document shepherds report which can you can find here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic/history/
Then you should consider
On Jun 9, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
I will claim our goal is native IPv6 along IPv4, and in the long run, IPv6
only.
We don't need more tunneling of IPv6 over IPv4, that was okay 10years
ago, maybe even 5 or 3 years ago.
Now it is time to actual do the right thing and say
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:50 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
- the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the
document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and
technical soundness.
Informational status was at the behest of the iesg, we have been advised
Its 'rough' consensus...
I don't wanna rat-hole here, but imho send the draft onwards for
publication asap please.
G/
-Original Message-
From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Keith Moore
Sent: 09 June 2011 16:38
To: james woodyatt
Cc: v6...@ietf.org
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 11:05:29AM -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action.
One voice doesn't make it consensus to drop.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG
On Jun 9, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
I don't have a problem with the idea that an Informational document can
describe the consequences of moving something to Historic. I have a serious
problem with the idea that a standards-track document can be moved off of
the standards
