Thus spake "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Agree, but actually I was wondering, if the AC/board has the power
so just modify the policy in order to use ULA-C space, assuming
that when the ULA-C becomes available, it offers the same
features required by this policy. It may be much easier and faster
instead of going thru the PDP all the way.
This sounds suspiciously like "I don't seem to have the support of the
community, so I wonder if the Board/AC can ignore the process and do what I
want anyways."
I don't know whether or not they can do that; it doesn't seem possible, but
there's probably a loophole or two. However, given the vocal opposition to
the proposal (and the very existence of ULA-C), I doubt you'd ever convince
them to if they could. It's one thing to sneak through something that
nobody cares about either way, but it's entirely different to deliberately
exclude the community on something so divisive.
Anyway is something that could be debated when ULA-C is
available :-)
If you seriously propose doing the above, I suspect you'll manage to
alienate even the folks who agree with ULA-C.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
