Re: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> You can do this in multiple ways. You could (playing the devils 
> advocate) argue that the IETF should create technical specifications 
> that can handle the policy of the RIRs. After all, to a large extent 
> the RIR membership is most likely a better representation of 
> "end-users" (for some definition of users) than the IETF is.

problem is that the rirs, aside from missing protocol folk, are
also missing router/backbone ops folk.  so they get a very narrow
view.

> A better way to move forward is most likely to have the IETF
> _cooperate_ with the RIRs on a working policy.

bingo!

randy