[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Results of Poll



First, could you please be clear where your cutoff is?  I am pretty sure 
this poll indeed does not show consensus, but the original deprecation call 
was based on percentages that were only quantitatively, but maybe not 
qualitatively clearer.

I would also point out that the poll indicates that there is no consensus 
for moving the deprecation document by itself.

Having said that, the stated course of action seems the right one. 
However, the numbers suggest to me that moving the documents together 
through WG last call -- with a well worked out "replacement" document -- 
will be much less likely to result in an e-mail bloodbath than the (to some 
tempting) approach of pushing deprecation and then conveniently forgetting 
the other document.

--On Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:55 -0700 Bob Hinden & Brian Haberman 
<hinden@iprg.nokia.com> wrote:

> There was not a consensus about tieing the deprecation of site-local to
> defining an alternative or do the deprecation before defining an
> alternative.  The working group is closely split on this.  Even combing
> preferences B & C (i.e., 55%) does not form a consensus.



Hans Kruse, Associate Professor
J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management
Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701
740-593-4891 voice, 740-593-4889 fax

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------