Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>> 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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]