If the information presented in the document is "historic" the minute its posted (because its a snapshot), why not post the doc as "historic"? Stephan On 12.16.2011 07:00 , "Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Wes: I understand your concern, and it certainly has given us pause when >speaking about these results in different forums. > >But at the end of the day, I think running code, real world situation, >and useful information for the reader trump such concerns. I think we >should be open about the issues, and mark the document clearly as a >snapshot. Perhaps highlight this aspect even in the section that talks >about, e.g., games. But I think it would take away from the value of this >document if we didn't report the issues. And I'm the guy who wants >IPv6-only to succeed and who sells gear for it. If I'm ready to talk >about this, I think the IETF should be able to publish an RFC about it, >too. > >(Also, waiting is not a real option because we can't necessarily keep >repeating tests all the time, and because there will always be some >things that are broken. When all the widely used things are up and >running there will be some less widely used things that no one bothered >to fix. When those are up and running there will be some rarely used >things that will never be upgraded and which might not even be used. And >so on. And no, this is not a problem because there will always be >breakage in the internet. There are plenty of web sites that cannot be >contacted even on IPv4, plenty of software that no longer works even on >the IPv4 Internet because it can't deal with NATs, etc.) > >Jari > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf