On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: |Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6. It may or |may not also apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide |a path forward for IPv6.
> |That's a pretty weak consensus. Are you sure you want to roll forward > |without seeking a statement that more than a minority can agree to > |without reservations? > > I admit that it's rough consensus, for varying definitions of 'rough'. ;-) > I wasn't trying to take a vote, just express my sense of where we stand. Tony, I appreciate what you're trying to accomplish here but I think you improperly merged two consensus statements into one. Unless I'm badly mistaken we only have consensus on one of them. 1. Any valid solution set must support IPv6. 2. A valid solution set may but is not required to support IPv4. I suspect we have a strong consensus on point 1. The reservations, hedging and outright rejection offered strongly suggest that we lack consensus (rough or otherwise) on point 2. There's a simple enough solution: take the two separated statements and ask again. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
