Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to Proposed Standard
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: IESG <iesg@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-sunset4-ipv6-ietf-01.txt> (IETF: End Work on IPv4) to Proposed Standard
- From: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 11:03:46 -0700
- Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <CAA=duU1dx+rBpMyxy34fusE_BeZ06Df_cHtU7-NMdq-5ux5FcA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <150660518277.13796.5801483741214576151.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAA=duU1dx+rBpMyxy34fusE_BeZ06Df_cHtU7-NMdq-5ux5FcA@mail.gmail.com>
This document is not ready for standardization because many statements
in the document contradict each other. There are prohibitions that in
one sentence have exceptions, but in another sentence do not have the
same exceptions. The statements in the Abstract are much more
restrictive than the statements in the body of the draft. There was
nearly no discussion of the draft in the WG (a total of three commenters
in WG Last Call, and no discussion before WG Last Call; the draft was
discussed at no IETF or interim meetings).
Because of the significant number of contradictions in the draft, it is
impossible to say whether there is consensus. The draft should be
rewritten to be internally consistent before the IETF is asked whether
there is consensus for the proposed limitations.
--Paul Hoffman
[Index of Archives]
[IETF Annoucements]
[IETF]
[IP Storage]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCTP]
[Linux Newbies]
[Fedora Users]