RE: IPv6 transition architecture discussion

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

> > I simply disagree and strongly do not support this and ask 
> the chairs 
> > to kill 90% of what you suggest as out of scope for this 
> mail list and 
> > the IETF.
> 
> Such a reply to the perfectly reasonable and well-documented 
> draft of Pekka about the current IPv6 situation helps me to 
> understand why the IPv6 transition is so slow (I connected my 
> employer to the 6bone in 1996 and I saw very little progress 
> since). If all the IPv6 zealots believe and act the same, 
> IPv6 will stay a small island for many years to come.
> 
> If you treat such concerns like you do and with words like 
> this one, we will soon only have trolls like Dan Bernstein to 
> tell the simple truth about IPv6.

Please see reply I just sent to Pekka.  I am saying we should not tell
product developers how to deliver their products in this community it is
not our job here.

Is that better?

I fully agree we need to work on the charter of v6ops.  That does not
include making suggestions how my OS handles a printer for IPv6.

Regards,
/jim