Randy,
You have three points that deserve to be addressed. These are:
1) "as measured on the real internet, not the ietf bar, 6to4 sucks caterpillar snot"
2) "perhaps that minority was also vocal in the back room"
3) "yes, but that will be a year from now. in the ietf, delay is one form of death"
Responses follow:
1) While not stated so colorfully, draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory made this point. It has been approved for publication.
2) While there was no back-room activity, an appeal had been filed at the WG level. Since WG consensus was stronger than IETF consensus, it is reasonable to assume that the appeal would be escalated to the IESG level if it was not approved at the WG level. So, any way you look at it, there would be delays.
3) The new document may not take a year to publish. Since it is a short draft, it could be produced in a few days. Once it is produced, we could immediately initiate a WG last call and an IETF last call immediately after that. So, we might be talking about a six-week delay.
Now, I have a question for you, Lorenzo and Doug. If our goal is to take 6-to-4 off of the Internet, does not disabling it by default solve most of the problem? AFAIKS, very few users would enable it and service providers would not be economically incented to support 6-to-4 relay routers.
Comments?
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:v6ops-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 5:35 PM
To: Lorenzo Colitti
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
>> If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak up soon.
i object. as measured on the real internet, not the ietf bar, 6to4
sucks caterpillar snot. it is damaging to the users and to the users'
view of ipv6.
> 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.
perhaps that minority was also vocal in the back room
> But perhaps I missed some discussion.
>
> 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,
yes, but that will be a year from now. in the ietf, delay is one form
of death.
> 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" :-)
this is nutso. but this is normal.
welcome to the ietf
randy
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf