Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>    > From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>    > I suspect that operators are *severely* under-represented on this
>    > list (ietf@xxxxxxxx) because it is very noisy and operators have
>    > other priorities.
>

Yes, and this thread is noise.  In fact, Noel comments are
specifically off-topic and should be a new thread which can get added
the old thread about 6to4.

> Ah, operators. This would be the same group of people of whom, if the
> recent anecdotal reports are much to go on, many (most?) are not bothering
> to deploy IPv6 at all?
>

Which operator is not actively working on IPv6 projects *right now*?
Seriously, that old statement does not hold water today.

> (Something which would seem to be very common among smaller operators,
> whom one assumes, in typical long-tail fashion, form the majority of the
> group.)
>
> But their views are paramount?
>
> I see.
>

Not taking the bait.  Let's move.

>        Noel
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]