On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> - In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS WG and IETF consensus
>>
>> If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak up soon.
>
>
> Great, back to square one.
>
> Is the reasoning behind the decision explained somewhere? My reading of the threads on the subject in v6ops was that the opposition to 6to4-historic was a small but vocal minority, and I thought that qualified as rough consensus. But perhaps I missed some discussion.
>
I saw the same thing. It is a shame that work that directly removes barriers to REAL ipv6 deployment gets shouted down by a few people not involved in REAL ipv6 deployment.
Welcome to the ietf indeed.
Cb
> Also, why do the author and the chairs think that the new draft will do any better than 6to4-historic? I would assume that the same people who spoke up against 6to4-historic will speak up against the new document, and since that level of opposition was sufficient to prevent the publication of 6to4-historic, it may be sufficient to prevent publication of the new document as well. If so, we will have spent 3-6 months arguing about it for naught.
>
> Please, nobody answer this question with "welcome to the IETF" :-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf