[v6ops] I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-3177bis-end-sites-00.txt
fred at cisco.com
Mon Sep 27 19:19:24 CEST 2010
On Sep 27, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> artificial serialization seems an unneeded way to put additional delay in an already long process.
understood. My problem is that as for example on the incremental CGN draft I often get no comments at all, or no comments (simple security draft) until months after the WGLC closes. Makes it kind of hard to represent the WG's opinions going upstream. I'd rather perhaps put up a wiki and say "on drafts A, B, C, and D, please go to the appropriate wiki page and post your thoughts". My experience suggests that I would have no results on anything.
Rock, meet hard place.
I can tell when the operators really care about something, though. I asked the question of the IPv6 operators forum <ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de> this weekend specifically because when Marla/Tony/Jason brought the document to v6ops I expected exactly the discussion we have been having over the weekend, and I wanted it out on the table in black and white. You and other operators make rather a point of castigating the IETF for not listening. I hope you will be just as open about acknowledging when we do.
More information about the ipv6-ops