On 11 Dec 2014, at 14:11, Lee Howard wrote:
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 6:18 PM
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Lee Howard <Lee@xxxxxxxxxx>, IESG IESG <iesg@xxxxxxxx>, Bob
Hinden
<bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx>, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx>, IETF
Discussion
<ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed
Standard
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Dec 10, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Lee Howard <Lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My opinion on this Last Call: it's about IPv4, and I don't care
about IPv4
anymore. We shouldn't be bothering with it in the IETF.
This is why I was so surprised by the controversy. Sigh
Unfortunately it seems that a bunch of folk early on decided that the
best way
to motivate the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 was to make IPv6
'better' and to
sabotage any attempts to mitigate the consequences of IPv4 shortage.
IPv6 IS the mitigation of the consequences of IPv4 shortage.
But my opinion is well-documented in draft-george-ipv6-support.
The way to achieve transition is to do the exact opposite of the old
strategy.
Instead of making IPv6 different, we have to make it exactly the same
so that
the transition cost is minimal.
It isn't clear to me that a change in strategy is required. To remain
on
topic, will moving this Experimental RFC to Proposed Standard make the
transition any easier?
The goal isn't IPv6, though‹the goal is a functioning, interoperable
Internet. I believe we have consensus that IPv6 is the best mechanism
to
achieve that. I think I see consensus that some transition tools are
temporarily useful as people wait for others to deploy. Do we need a
Proposed Standard for those temporary transition tools?
Lee
Hear hear Lee!
Christopher
--
李柯睿
Avt tace, avt loqvere meliora silentio
Check my PGP key here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: http://www.asgaard.org/cdl/cdl.vcf