Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion

[Hans Liu <[e-mail]>]

Despite of the author role, I sincerely support this document as a product
manager of a CE router vendor.  Experience tells me it is almost impossible
to ask the programmers in my OEM vendors to read all related RFCs when I
want them to implement a new feature.  They are not IETFer so they may not
voice in the mailing list how useful and helpful a summary can facilitate
their works.  But I know they do appreciate summarized guidelines like RFC
7084. I don't think I could have had all my OEM vendorss to make qualified
IPv6 CE routers for IPv6 world launch without RFC 6204.


Sincerely,
Hans

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 6:40 AM, Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> > On Apr 18, 2018, at 11:17 AM, Lee Howard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I think this document is needed.
>
> So, in addition to the authors, we have three people (Richard, Barbara,
> and Lee) that have said to the list that this document "is needed", by
> which I infer that they want it to be adopted as a working group document.
> That said, as I said to Fred Templin a few weeks ago, that isn't proof of a
> consensus.
>
> The chairs would be interested to know how many do, and how many do not,
> want that to happen. If you have specific arguments, relevance to your part
> of the world, and so on, that's important too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>


-- 
Instead of following the fashion, we lead it through.