Re: [sig-policy] prop-103-v001: A Final IP Address Policy Proposal
The biggest reluctance is to close the door on IPv6 policy so soon in
the deployment [1].
I think that there might be some middle ground whereby the PDP process
only started up when a proposal was presented, rather than as a matter
of course. That way the door was always open, but didn't mean that
there had to be a party every 6 months if there was nothing to say.
Regards,
Dean
[1] yes I realise how long the RFCs have been around. yes I realise
how long people SHOULD have been doing this.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com> wrote:
>> Randy, would you as the proposer be open to making amendments to this
>> proposal? Or would you rather that it stand as currently written?
>
> in principle, sure. but would depend on the amendments, of course.
> e.g. one to serve coffee ice cream at all meetings would be most
> welcome. (we really should try to keep a sense of humor)
>
> but beware of the union standard proposal effect. nw said something
> like everyone thinks pascal is almost perfect, and wants to change only
> one thing. the problem is that everyone has a different thing.
>
> randy
--
Regards,
Dean