Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6 WGLC

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 16:45:28 -0500

This is to initiate a two week working group last call of draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6. Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the list.

We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make.

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 09:41:54 -0400

WG,

As a note, I have an updated coming which incorporates comments made by
Gang Chen and Christian Jacquenet.

Most of those updates were related to NAT64 (inclusions for text in
overview section and deployment considerations) and positioning of text.

The set of updates that I have not yet included in the draft pending are
those which suggest that preference should be given to IPv6 to promote
deployment.  Whereas I agree in general that we need to deploy IPv6 in an
expedited manner, I do not think risking IPv4 running state operation is a
viable option.  Making IPv4 worse on purpose (when given other choices) is
not a practical and reasonable option.  I welcome other opinions here
(please try and avoid religious positions on IPv6 and think about the
customer experience).

regards,

Victor Kuarsingh

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of
> draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6. Please read it now. If you find
> nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to
> the authors; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a
> statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please
> post your comments to the list.
>
> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document
> as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be
> of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make.
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>