This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6, they should not notice it.
This is *NOT* useless. If a user network is connected to an ISP only through IPv6, then it is very useful indeed, if they can access email services or any other service provided by Yahoo, Google and others. Remember, that the day will come when users must choose between a purely IPv6 Internet connnection, or no new connection at all. In that scenario, access to services is what counts. It would be nice if the setup was effortless, but that is not necessary. But look at it from a different point of view. That day has not yet arrived so ISPs do not currently have to provide services to users over a pure IPv6 connection. The suggestion for Yahoo was made with the intention of TRIALING IPv6. That is most definitely *NOT* useless to ISPs and content providers. Nobody was saying that ISPs should begin to move customers onto IPv6 right now using special ipv6 subdomains. Your statement about what users should and should not do, reminds me of Communist party thinking. Several countries have tried out central planning by "experts" on a large scale and it has been proven to be unworkable and sub-optimal. I think that there is a general consensus, among ISPs at least, that transition to IPv6 will be gradual and will be done on a needs basis, not centrally planned by governments or RIRs or experts. ISPs are, for the most part, business enterprises which make their planning decisions based on customer demand. If customers don't notice something, then they won't demand it. So, I think that the vast majority of ISPs do want customers to notice the transition to IPv6. They do want customers to understand the imperatives of IPv4 exhaustion. They do want customers to engage with them on IPv6, so that ISPs can provide the right kind of services for each different customer type. In some cases, that will involve things like IPv4-IPv6 application layer web proxies which the network engineering crowd would detest. Or maybe Akamai will come up with some kind of IPv4-IPv6 redirection scheme complete with backdoor IPv4 double-NAT tunnels. The work may be done on the base technology of IPv6, but there is still a lot of scope for work on transition of SERVICES (not networks) to an IPv6 world.
And if there are issues (my experience is not that one), we need to know them ASAP. Any transition means some pain, but as sooner as we start, sooner we can sort it out, if required.
What's this? You disagree with yourself? OK, I'm with you fellas... --Michael Dillon O Brother, Where Art Thou?