Re: An architectural draft

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Brian;

> This document appears to be about 56 days late, or perhaps 309 days early.

Considering that IPv6 document is about 56 years late, or perhps 309
years early, maybe.

For the next round to claim IPv6 is deployed?

> Ohta-san asserts that IPv6 will not be deployed in its present form. That 
> isn't consistent with the evidence I see,

Evidence?

Note that it has been a stated that "IPv6 will be deployed in its
present form. That is consistent with the evidence I see." for these
8 years.

So, let's have a reality check. What evidence do you have?

If you don't have it, as an evidence of deployment, how many end
users, can you say, are using IPv6?

> and it isn't a relevant issue for
> multi6, which deals with IPv6 in its present form, as far as I can
> understand the charter.

No. We did discuss some changes.

> The detailed assertions in the draft are mainly wrong, but since they
> are irrelevant to multi6, I hope we will not waste bits here on them.

Removal of autoconfiguration, for example, does affect multi6.

As all the useless features of IPv6 have complex interrelationships,
if you think some of the assertions are wrong, it's your turn
to state so with evidences on the part you want to refute.

							Masataka Ohta