Re: [arch-d] [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Fri, 28 February 2020 02:18 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7283A0C44; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:18:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B2J0Pwnd3xXI; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-f178.google.com (mail-oi1-f178.google.com [209.85.167.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F7233A0C3D; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:18:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-f178.google.com with SMTP id a142so1397973oii.7; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:18:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3rOcd53MjRvRWXOGNqIf426fWCIz/LrIfn+4QXNT0nc=; b=JKxx6+RZ6Mtr3XsuNFcSSv3P4rA9WHXf+ksVSSTe1eovIdwkqD3LAI0mOQdgtBCcdO nw0z34VuroH53b9NuQKzjGToiHSvp+xdcy6Y7eSbnQ53Oq6GQV7iVFXCtDwo+yTWJLeM NyxnqwxPWL8NZprfbZPeWN6I8abgXeeqyZk7EPrxm05055JRxV3jqs17cVGFedrkMpVh Nm0O5sJhPK7mYWqzOYCEpWLjuj9/il/6DSXy9adGQuQgdhiLeOpEi7rs31NETXL/oUm0 /xcDJLe/5xMcMkvHZNT8CznyDjbfQ1QqEQqy15f/kD2Wx+VJF4HLLpszPWZaO+TDMDRa 8Lqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVwGNvgA9o5MfhXAxUx9+MpOi/sCdmzBEyyqE0gGHDwRVm80QXT NiW9bL6ahPqJ2gZSja/9x/ogFRcVBVAnt5yKeoA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx7gH7i9uUjVQnWYSLwiP8tCGEMv0qqRuuuBdmWiiGezOuiei6kdb2pihfMm8cs3idMCbqerjXkIGUVgXFGIoM=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:cf94:: with SMTP id f142mr1504985oig.31.1582856314547; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 18:18:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <876c9105-3da4-e614-2db0-bea025b54663@si6networks.com> <7749f91f-03f1-cc14-bae8-5fe68c88879f@si6networks.com> <CALx6S36wN7VEi_rxLC1ETcTvkGaPhs20KhQrGWAGGTrCL5OT+g@mail.gmail.com> <d41a94f5ede994b9e14605871f9f7140@strayalpha.com> <69bd06b8-7eee-dfbc-5476-bba0f71ae915@si6networks.com> <3c307da7e8f52b7a29037a1084daf254@strayalpha.com> <a24a3621-99f6-755d-c679-2061b9a67adf@si6networks.com> <CAOj+MMGJ11CBCov=-jfZUtROJPwhQB3A=+0gMBhzZgxoF_9N1A@mail.gmail.com> <a4540c5f-2ede-58bd-4452-49e697814b18@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <a4540c5f-2ede-58bd-4452-49e697814b18@si6networks.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 21:18:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwjYB95aczwa0TLtHE2FBT=XkkPKo4_mTnqCWAsfAk=4hQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, architecture-discuss@iab.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005bf0ec059f997410"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/BvJXOCHAEPT72OKJrXZc6KkHWCY>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] [Int-area] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 02:18:37 -0000

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 8:52 PM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:

> On 27/2/20 20:58, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> >
> [...]
> >
> > We need to ask ourselves what is more important ... quality of data
> > plane for end users with 10s of ms of connectivity restoration times
> > upon failure or keeping original IPv6 dogmas in place where folks never
> > envisioned such needs or technologies to be invented.
>
> I don't care myself about dogmas.
>
> But there's an established process to do these things:
>
> * You propose to change the existing behavior, and normally explain
> what's that beneficial, and maybe you elaborate on why you are not
> pursuing any possible alternatives.
>
> * Once you gain consensus on the changes, you apply them.
>

That was the OSI model.

The Internet was based on a model of permisive experimentation.

The IETF is a catalyst for generating the necessary critical mass for
deployment. But some deployments don't need a catalyst.