Folks,
I think that I get it. There is no IETF consensus regarding the compromise proposed below. So, at very least, we will have to abandon the compromise.
Right now, the only alternative that I see is to reintroduce draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic and let the appeal process run its course. I hate to do this, because the appeals process can be an incredible time sync and distraction. If anybody sees another alternative, please propose it.
Ron
<speaking as AD>
P.S. This thread has generated over 100 messages in the last 28 hours. Let's all take two days to cool off and spend some time with our families.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bonica
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 12:36 PM
To: v6ops@xxxxxxxx; IETF Discussion
Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
Folks,
Whereas there has been considerable controversy regarding draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic, the v6ops chairs and document author have agreed to the following course of action:
- the V6OPS WG will withdraw its request to publish draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
- The author will introduce a new draft, intended for standards track publication. The new draft will update RFCs 3056 and 3068. It will say that if 6-to-4 is implemented, it must be turned off by default.
- 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.
Ron
<Speaking as OPS Area AD>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf