> Editor's Note: Press reports of the ACLU's action confused two separate
> issues. The first was a discussion (not a plan) of what should be the
> IETF's policy regarding supporting wiretapping for IETF protocols. This
> had nothing to do with IPv6. The issue was aired at the IETF's November
>
Hi Randy,
You know, I probably don't want to go here, but since you pulled the
ring tab and opened this can:
Randy Bush wrote:
. . .
> > statement available from
>
> "available as" i suspect a url is *popularly* considered to be the document
> not it's location.
Well, I don't recall any pol
Perry,
> Jon Crowcroft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >>Having said that, I ask you: What do you foresee as a realistic IPv6
> > >>transition plan? Dual stacks? I don't see it happening, to tell you
> > >>the truth. (Maybe this 6-in-4 stuff will actually help here.)
> >
> > well, how about
