On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 15:21, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:>> 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.
As a member of that "small but vocal minority" I think you are being a little unfair here; some of us are working quite hard in getting IPv6 deployed in a number of different places.
> 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.
And, FWIW, I have no objections to having it off by default. In fact, I welcome that.
/TJ
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf