On 07/02/2011 12:21, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Jul 2, 2011 11:55 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" <lore...@google.com
<mailto:lore...@google.com>> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Ronald Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net
<mailto:rbon...@juniper.net>> wrote:
>>
>> - In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both
V6OPS WG and IETF consensus
>>
>> If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak up soon.
>
>
> Great, back to square one.
>
> 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. But perhaps I missed some discussion.
>
I saw the same thing. It is a shame that work that directly removes
barriers to REAL ipv6 deployment gets shouted down by a few people not
involved in REAL ipv6 deployment.
I can't speak to the "REAL" bit, but I agree that this is a very
disappointing turn of events. Consensus is not the same as "universal
agreement," and I don't think the fact that a few people are repeating
the same marginally-relevant-at-best points over and over again should
have sidetracked this process.
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
