Re: shim6 vs nanog

[John Payne <john () sackheads org>]

On Oct 15, 2005, at 12:32 AM, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:

> > Not directly aimed at William: As others have said before (and I
> > finally listened) PLEASE take this discussion to the shim6 list.
>
>     there are some reasons why i'd rather have the discussion here...
>     ) IETF IPR and legal restraints on postings
>     ) shim6 is a protocol design working group, not an operational wg
>         * the IETF has always done operations poorly, it seems  
> worse these days.
>     ) there are enough folks on both that they can "represent" to  
> shim6 list as needed/desired

The problem is... from what  I've seen so far the operational  
requirements voice is a lonely one.  If there are any network  
operators on this list who wouldn't qualify for PI space in an IPv6  
world... do you really want your traffic engineering decisions made  
by individual end systems based on delay?