Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-07.txt

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:37:18AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>> Am I the only one who thinks that we should chuck the whole thing?
>>> 
>>> Seems like it.
>> 
>> The message in the v6ops meeting was pretty clear
> 
> ... and yet, the select few who were in that room are not the WG, which is why I asked. :)
> 
> I would hate for even a significant minority opinion to get bulldozed here because "We decided this in HI." OTOH, if the consensus of the entire WG is truly to create this new hybrid thing, I won't object too loudly. I think it's a mistake of course ...
> 
>> and that is the
>> reason for the diffs between -06 and -07. I understand there will
>> be a WGLC soon so that the chairs can verify consensus on this.
>> 
>> (The comments made so far on -07 are being held until after the
>> WGLC.)
> 
> As a process step that gives an air of finality to the decision that I don't think is fair. "We decided this in HI, now we're having a WGLC, you agree, right?" Given that AFAICS the consensus was pretty strong to chuck the whole thing going into HI, it's not clear to me what changed, or why it changed, or even that the majority of the WG agrees with the new plan. Not having any of that discussion until WGLC feels like stacking the deck to me, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that.

it certainly would be interesting to hear what existing use cases there are for peer to peer mode 6to4 (as in without relays). I also have a hard time understanding the usefulness of keeping any of it.

cheers,
Ole