What specifically would you like changed in the draft? Can you suggest text? On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker <fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second WGLC, in which you again declined to comment, although you may have seen Lorenzo's comments, which were picked up in a November version of the draft. Ralph and Jari finally cleared their "discuss" ballots a couple of weeks ago, and we are having a second IETF last call.
I'd like to understand your objective here. I know that you don't care for the draft, and at least at one point took it as a somewhat-personal attack. Is your objective to prevent the draft's publication entirely, or do you think that there is value in publishing it given a productive response to this comment? At what point are you willing to either participate in the public dialog or choose to not comment at all?
Ok, let me see if I can rephrase Erik's objection.
The draft needs to take World IPv6 Launch into account, because it's a key piece of the puzzle.
We can't publish an RFC on how to transition content to IPv6 if the RFC ignores the event when 5 of the top 10 websites in the world (and probably many more) will permanently enable IPv6 for everyone.
Cheers, Lorenzo
|
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf