On Dec 3, 2014, at 7:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/12/2014 16:06, Ted Lemon wrote: >> On Dec 3, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> We have effectively gotten to the point of depletion of IPV4 addresses, and the world has not come to an end. I don't see any need to reclassify this RFC as a standard and think doing so would cause confusion in the community and be harmful to the Internet. >> >> If you think this shouldn't be a standard, why didn't you object when MAP-E, MAP-T and Lightweight 4over6 were last-called? > > I can't answer for Bob, but those documents were the result of > a pretty laborious rough consensus process in Softwire and would > have been very hard to challenge that consensus. Also, if I'm > not mistaken, those solutions all explicitly involve transport > of IPv4 via IPv6 (as does XLAT464); A+P is just orthgonal to IPv6. +1 Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail