Hi Fernando, There is a point that's been grating on me for the entire thread but I had trouble finding a good way to express it: On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:19:46PM -0300, Fernando Frediani wrote: > Hello > I am not sure if you followed the whole discussion of if you have seen > only this message, but this has been already clarified that it's not > about Github specifically and that document. As mentioned there are > other cases, and other tools that do not go under the same process. > > It's instead about IETF keep using any tools that have not done their > part in implementing IPv6 on it yet. It's about showing the example, not > just get the work done regardless. I know some people are more pragmatic > and just want to get work out of their way, but I personally believe > sticking to values in this situation is indeed important. What good is > it if IETF standardizes things if some people don't bother if they will > be adopted and followed or not ? Couldn't I make this same argument about *any* IETF standard? Do we need to reject services that don't implement TLS 1.3 or NFSv4 or QUIC or OSPF (v2 or v3?) or ...? Bjoern made (upthread) a much more compelling argument about why IPv6 specifically is so important, and I think you're doing yourself a disservice by using only the "it's an IETF standard" argument. Sorry for the digression, Ben
