Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt> (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

On 4 February 2012 01:35, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Erik Kline wrote:
>
>> World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I
>> think.  Since this would be published after the announcement of World
>> IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to discuss its own
>> applicability in a post- World IPv6 Launch Internet.
>
> With respect...
>
> The document was originally discussed in v6ops, and you chose to not comment. It went through last call there in January 2011 and was sent to the IESG. IESG review took until April, and an updated draft was posted at the end of May 2011. At IETF 81 (Quebec City) we were able to have you, the author, and some others discuss it. The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second WGLC, in which you again declined to comment, although you may have seen Lorenzo's comments, which were picked up in a November version of the draft. Ralph and Jari finally cleared their "discuss" ballots a couple of weeks ago, and we are having a second IETF last call.
>
> I'd like to understand your objective here. I know that you don't care for the draft, and at least at one point took it as a somewhat-personal attack. Is your objective to prevent the draft's publication entirely, or do you think that there is value in publishing it given a productive response to this comment? At what point are you willing to either participate in the public dialog or choose to not comment at all?

With humblest apologies...

Having spent time rereading, I think W6L is clearly an implementation
of  sections 4.5 and 5.7, or 4.4 and 5.6, depending on the
implementer.

Additionally, in retrospect, there's probably no great reason to add a
reference to a future event.  It seems to me that the most meaningful
technical observation that can actually be offered would be its
scheduled calendar date.

There's no excuse for my failing to reread afresh before commenting.
Again, my apologies,
-Erik