Re: [RRG] Moving forward...

["William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:

|Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6.  It may or
|may not also apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide
|a path forward for IPv6.

> |That's a pretty weak consensus. Are you sure you want to roll forward
> |without seeking a statement that more than a minority can agree to
> |without reservations?
>
> I admit that it's rough consensus, for varying definitions of 'rough'.  ;-)
> I wasn't trying to take a vote, just express my sense of where we stand.

Tony,

I appreciate what you're trying to accomplish here but I think you
improperly merged two consensus statements into one. Unless I'm badly
mistaken we only have consensus on one of them.

1. Any valid solution set must support IPv6.

2. A valid solution set may but is not required to support IPv4.

I suspect we have a strong consensus on point 1. The reservations,
hedging and outright rejection offered strongly suggest that we lack
consensus (rough or otherwise) on point 2.

There's a simple enough solution: take the two separated statements
and ask again.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com  bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg