Subject: Re: The state of IPv6 multihoming development

From: [email-masked] (Sean Doran)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 00:20:20 +0000 (GMT)

| While I agree that it may not be entirely necessary for the real deployment of
| IPv6, it is IPv6 opponents that continually use it to denigrate IPv6.  So
| that's why I said "thorn in the side" instead of a "gaping wound" :)  These
| people are the kinds of people who have strong influence in teh spheres of
| power.  Until they are silenced once and for all, they whittle away trying to
| reduce any progress that IPv6 would make.

Please, let's not have comments with a tone like this (from anyone, of this
or contrary opinion) here, whether this was intended as a serious comment,
or as a joke.  Discussion of people's individual or collective motives 
is unlikely to be appropriate for this list.

That is not to say that you should not express the opinion here,
(which I hope I am summarizing reasonably), namely, that the work
of multi6 is not critical to the deployment success of IPv6, but
that there is unfortunate P.R. because our work here is not done.
Many people on this list would agree.

That said, I think it would be more productive to try to move
forward on the item in front of us per the charter, namely
submitting a requirements draft to the IESG for review.

If you think the existing draft is ready, great.  
If there is consensus, we will last call it.

If you think that the existing draft can use some
improvements, please post those improvements here
and alert the draft editor that you have done so.

If you think that you can write a better draft from
scratch, then please do so, and submit it in the
usual manner.

Finally, if you want an official forum analogous to the "-interest"
2ndary/non-work lists enjoyed by other WGs, we can probably
do something about that, so that all sorts of issues related
to multi6 but not specifically advancing a requirements draft,
can be discussed somewhere obvious to everyone, including newcomers.

Note though that even an "-interest" list would not 
be alt.flame, alt.conspiracy or alt.satire.

	Sean. (oh and please don't newgroup alt.flame.multi6.  thanks.)

---

From: Peter Tattam <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:40:30 +1100 (EST)

I sincerly apologize - the negative tone was not intended, but rather I wanted
to express the frustration which I personally have experienced when trying to
promote IPv6 to groups of IT specialists who have been reluctant to see the
benefits of IPv6. I am drawing from my own personal experience where I have
been attacked on this very topic.

Peter

--
Peter R. Tattam                            [email-masked]
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210