On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 12:21:36 -0700 Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> - 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. > > > > > > 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 Where is the evidence that 6to4 is holding back native IPv6 deployment? > gets shouted down by a few people not involved in > REAL ipv6 deployment. > How do you know that? > Welcome to the ietf indeed. > > Cb > > > 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. > > > > Please, nobody answer this question with "welcome to the IETF" :-) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > v6ops mailing list > > v6ops@xxxxxxxx > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf