On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:10:19AM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[ Cross-post, to get everybody in sync, Other messages in this thread can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ipv6-wg/2004/msg00089.html ]
On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 09:58, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 2004-07-22, at 09.43, Jeroen Massar wrote:
But indeed, if there is concensus or not 9/9/2004 and ip6.int is gone for me.
I vote for 9/9/2004 and getting rid of it properly. Maintaining two reverse threes will create more problems than it will solve.
What, specifically, is the hurry?
Take your pick:
http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00... http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00... http://unfix.org/~jeroen/archive/drafts/draft-massar-v6ops-ip6int-removal-00...
Short, quick and easy. If no comments are risen for 16:00 today I'll submit this as an ID.
Comments: e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa was documented in RFC3681 published in February 2004 and actioned in July 2004. I'm assuming the actioning of e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa is the trigger for this I-D; if so, why do you want to wait so little time (2 months) between e.f.f.3.ip6.arpa becoming available and requiring people to have updated resolver libraries? Personally I'd be more in favour of a 6 month timeout - i.e around last December or so. Anand -- `` All actions take place in time by the interweaving of the forces of Nature; but the man lost in selfish delusion thinks that he himself is the actor.'' Lord Krishna to Arjuna in _The Bhagavad Gita_