Subject: RE: Draft of updated WG charter

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 01:56:08 -0800

I find myself becoming rapidly depressed by this conversation.  I was
under the impression that we had a requirements document already on
the table.  I thought that we were a good bit past this.

I'm going to tune out now.  Please wake me if folks decide that
they actually want to fix this problem.

Tony

---

From: vijay gill <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 15:19:12 +0000

> they actually want to fix this problem.

Tony, 

 I don't think this discussion should be viewed as discouraging, as much
 as it should be viewed as setting the baseline for the end system
 reality that any solution must account for. End systems can be changed,
 but any solution we come up with must be "easy" to set up and work
 with.

/vijay

---

From: Jay Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:33:17 -0600 (CST)

> the table.  I thought that we were a good bit past this.

Tony:

I think I understand your perspective, but try not to get bummed. Discussions
such as this indicate interest & willingness to be involved.  You should be
more discouraged if people in positions such as mine (operator of a fairly
large university network) tuned out & vowed never to deploy IPv6.

> they actually want to fix this problem.

Wake up, then.  Based on Noel Chiappa's browbeating & Brian Carpenter's
relevance admonishment, I'm accepting the multi-address thing (on faith until
I can rationalize it) & focusing on the effort as currently defined.

I apologize for the diversion, though I assure you that it was well intended.

Jay