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

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

What specifically would you like changed in the draft? Can you suggest text? 

On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> 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.
> 
> Cheers,
> Lorenzo