On Dec 4, 2014, at 8:34 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It would help me understand your question (as a 3rd party to the conversation) if you would say more about why you think an objection to the tex Bob quoted from RFC 6346 would be related to objections to MAP-E, MAP-T and Lightweight 4over6. The question was essentially a half-formed thought that I probably should have allowed to fully form before expressing. Bob objected to some language in 6346; I agree that the language is wrong. It made sense to write at the time, but actually the reason A+P has been a success is because it's a good way to enable the IPv6 transition, not because it's a good way to postpone it. So if Bob's only objection to the document is that text, I agree with him that the text is wrong and should be changed. The question is, _is_ that his only objection?