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

On 2/8/12 05:54 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com
> <mailto:fred@cisco.com>> wrote:
> 
>     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?
> 
> 
> Ok, let me see if I can rephrase Erik's objection.
> 
> The draft needs to take World IPv6 Launch into account, because it's a
> key piece of the puzzle.
> 
> We can't publish an RFC on how to transition content to IPv6 if the RFC
> ignores the event when 5 of the top 10 websites in the world (and
> probably many more) will permanently enable IPv6 for everyone.

Ops is not marketing.

If you're saying some flag day makes the contents of the document no
longer operationally relevant after a given date, I'll take the point
but disagree.

The document in it's present form has a wider audience than the
operators at 5 of the ton 10 websites.

> Cheers,
> Lorenzo
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops