On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sep 28, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > While I sympathize with the intent of this draft, I don’t understand why > it’s being proposed as a standards track document. It doesn’t define any new > protocols, nor does it contain any BCP 14 language. Rather, it’s a statement > of policy for the IETF. I would suggest that it be published as an > Informational RFC rather than standards track. > > > Informational documents aren't consensus documents. > [speaking from an emerging country: Mauritius] Last time I spoke to local ISPs about v6, they are bay