Re: SIP now IPv6

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Peter,
    
    To take a pure researchers point of view in light of the current 
    IPv7 firestorms is unrealistic.    The IPv7 issue is one that is 

I just re-reach Steve's note and failed to find his labeling his
view as restricted, e.g., to one of a researcher.  Further, I'm not
a researcher and I concur with every point he made.

So, Peter, please explain why you put your response in those terms?

    It is also the case that the "management" of Internet 
    engineering efforts is in flux and unfortunately the 

For all of the flux, the IESG continues with the same mission (yes, plus
more) of overseeing development processes.  Nothing has changed with
respect to that function.  No doubt, things are changing, but they
have been in constant change.  And we haven't felt the need to freeze
work until change stops.  Why now?

    this light that I think more context should be provided on
    announcements, in fact any announcement, from the I**5.  Although I am

I happen to agree with your desire for more public statements.

But my greatest concern is that I can't figure out what
"I**5" means and it looks like a wonderful notation.

    sure most of the 107 sip experts on the sip mailing list were
    intimately aware of what was going on, there is probably at least one
    who could stand to be educated by a longer note.

No doubt.  But a note which has a going-in position of asserting
political chicanery hardly is designed to obtain clarification.  No?

    Perhaps there are politicians lurking in unrecognized places which need 
    your prescription?

Great, Peter.  Very helpful.  This is just the sort of crack that is 
designed to contribute greatly to the technical discussions.  Right?
    
Dave