Given that there are other important documents still being actively finalized within the wg, I don't see a problem with Brian's suggested approach.
Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 8:09 AM > To: Durand, Alain > Cc: Ipv > Subject: Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft > > All, > > Durand, Alain wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:57 PM > >> To: 'Ipv' > >> Subject: Re: Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft > >>>> I say wrap it up and ship it. > >> if that's what we're doing, then, i say kill it > > > > This email exchange is the proof that an open discussion is needed. > > The IETF IPv6 wg doing a contraversial thing on its own without > > listening to the input from the operational people is not > productive, > > the last thing the community need is yet another power struggle. > > Before this thread gets any deeper in a rat hole, allow me to > point out > a few things. > > 1. The discussion of reviving Centrally Assigned ULAs > originated in the > RIR community > > 2. A new draft of the spec *with significant changes* is > being worked on > > 3. Input for the revised draft is coming from the RIR community > > Rather than assume the contents of the draft and argue their merits, > please wait for the posting of the new draft and then comment. > > Regards, > Brian > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
