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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

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