On 07/02/2011 12:21, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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.
I can't speak to the "REAL" bit, but I agree that this is a very disappointing turn of events. Consensus is not the same as "universal agreement," and I don't think the fact that a few people are repeating the same marginally-relevant-at-best points over and over again should have sidetracked this process.
Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf