Re: draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-00.txt and draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-01.txt

[Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   what happened to draft-cmetz-v6ops-v4mapped-api-harmful-00.txt and
   draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-01.txt?
   
=> they don't get a consensus and their authors are a bit late
to refresh them (or they had not enough time, or they lost interest).

   why isn't the ipv4-mapped problem addressed in
   draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-01.txt?
   
=> this is different: IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses on the wire have far
more opponents than IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses in the API.
For instance I am against the first and strongly in favor of the second,
i.e., I dislike SIIT and our local credo is "IPv6 is not a new protocol,
IPv6 is a new version of the Internet Protocol".

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr