Re: [dhcwg] We can change the world in a 1000 ways (IPv4 over IPv6)

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Wed, 13 November 2013 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7350B21E80A9; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:17:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jkgzgx4Vz1hh; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:17:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B1EF21E8116; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 8C58F18C0AA; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:17:37 -0500 (EST)
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20131113161737.8C58F18C0AA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:17:37 -0500
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:24:22 -0800
Cc: softwires@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] We can change the world in a 1000 ways (IPv4 over IPv6)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 16:17:47 -0000

    On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

    > is there a problem here, or should we just accept that sometimes the
    > IETF will generate ten sets of publications solving more or less the
    > same problem?

This has been a longstanding issue in the IETF (and its predecessors, I'd
have to check some of these dates) - going back to HEMS/SGMP, OSPF/IS-IS,
etc.

My long-standing personal position is that the IETF is pretty good at
_producing and vetting_ designs, but less good at _chosing_ from similar
alternatives. I think it's better if, when we can't agree, to let the users
decide which works best for them.

Yes, yes, I know, this is in some ways painful - resources get wasted on
duplicate efforts; some users wind up with investments in standards that
dead-end (think Betamax, etc); etc. But at the same time, making a choice can
produce lengthy, extensive painful politics and wrangling, too. So there are
down-sides both ways.

My bottom line: we're not infinitely smart, and have only limited
foresight. Some things you can only learn by trying things.

	Noel