On 28 Jul 2017, at 15:21, Ted Lemon wrote:
So if ietf goes away in favor of ietf-100, and ietf-hotel becomes ietf-100-hotel (or something like that), then would that address your objection?
That would fix the first problem, but your response skipped over the harder part:
Further, section 4.1 of the draft has no instructions for end users of various versions of various operating systems. The draft assumes that everyone attending an IETF meeting understands SLAAC and RA options and how they are set on their laptops: that assumption is demonstrably false, quite possibly for the majority of IETF attendees.
If we want to have a real dogfood test, the first step is documentation, not forced breakage for a significant portion of the attendees.
--Paul Hoffman