On Jul 3, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
This is a frustrating conversation. Everybody who supported the consensus in v6ops is an IETF participant, and their wishes count toward the IETF consensus. The draft is good. It encourages people to do the right things: keep 6to4 relays active, but not ship products with 6to4 enabled by default. This works for everyone—for people like me who are using 6to4 for our IPv6 connectivity, it works because the relays stay up. For people who do not have global IPv4 addresses, they do not wind up with IPv6 routes that go nowhere. It certainly serves Keith Moore's needs, no matter how vehemently, nor how often, he may insist that it does not. So this really does look like another IETF night of long knives, where a good draft gets scuttled in secret because a few very loud people manage to create enough of a fuss to make the person or persons calling the consensus feel like they're going to get fricasseed if they call the consensus in favor of the draft. Have we actually had a formal consensus call for the IETF? Who called the consensus? Can we have a summary? I haven't seen one. |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf