> Is the reasoning behind the decision explained somewhere? My reading of the > threads on the subject in v6ops was that the opposition to 6to4-historic was > a small but vocal minority, and I thought that qualified as rough consensus.
Even if there was rough consensus within v6ops, rough consensus of v6ops does not equate to rough consensus of the entire IETF community. > Also, why do the author and the chairs think that the new draft will do any > better than 6to4-historic? I would assume that the same people who spoke up > against 6to4-historic will speak up against the new document, and since that > level of opposition was sufficient to prevent the publication of > 6to4-historic, it may be sufficient to prevent publication of the new > document as well. If so, we will have spent 3-6 months arguing about it for > naught. I hope that the author(s) of the new document and the v6ops WG will understand that their task is to craft a document that can earn community-wide consensus, not merely the approval of v6ops. As long as the document is brief and to-the-point, I don't see any problem. I personally don't have any objection to the notion that 6to4 should be off by default and should require explicit configuration to enable it. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
