RE: Putting technology on the table [Re: Domain Centric Administration, RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic-00.txt]

> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] 

> I don't understand the tone of complaint in the above. The 
> IETF *has* put 6PE on the table: RFC 4798 is a Proposed 
> Standard. That's where the IETF's role ends - this is one of 
> the mechanisms for IPv6 coexistence, among which the market 
> can choose.

If we want to see deployment then maybe the IETF role should not end there. Or maybe the IETF should take a more active role in the handover process to those we hope to deploy.

There is a big difference between a change to a specification like S/MIME or HTTP where all we need to do is to get the software providers round the table to effect a change and an infrastructure standard.

I would like to see some more formal interaction between the principal standards bodies: IETF, W3C, OASIS and the industry groups that can help effect a change. The only group where there seems to be much crossover at the moment is to NANOG. We can get a heck of a lot more leverage by talking to groups like Jericho Forum, MAAWG, FSTC, APWG, etc.

And the dialog needs to be bidirectional. There are several IETF projects that have gone on for a long time, in one case a decade which appear to me to be profoundly misguided from a deployment and architectural point of view. That does not worry me much if they are spending their time, but when they propose their scheme as a platform others can build on, and MUST build on because its IETF, well there I see a problem.

Before sending NAT to historic I would like to see BEEP taken to the woodshed. It was a misguided attempt at 'me too' that never built up the necessary base of support. We should recognize that SOAP won that battle and move on.