On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 group. Again, haven't read all of the messages, but definitely get the impression that it falls short of consensus. There were quite heavy discussion and in the end, there were a few that was totally against it, the rest supported the document. No point in repeating that entire discussion here really, go back and look at the archive. > And just to be clear on procedure: > > - you need more than rough consensus in v6ops, you need rough community-wide consensus. > - the criteria for standards track actions (which this is, despite the document being labeled as Informational) requires both rough consensus and technical soundness. > > The best way to not rat-hole is just to drop the proposed action. Let's take a few step back and think about what we are trying to achieve here, what is our goal. IPv6 for everyone for any price? A IPv6 only world? A world where both IPv4 and IPv6 work or? 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 "let's do it properly, let's do IPv6 native". ...and stop discussing yesterdays technology. -- Roger Jorgensen | rogerj@xxxxxxxxx | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no ; | roger@xxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf