Re: Response to Jari's blog

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:15 AM, Olle E. Johansson <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> > On 31 Dec 2015, at 00:59, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 31/12/2015 09:26, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> > ...
> >> So we have bugs related to IPv6, we have a group of authors and the
> documents still are not going anywhere because a lack of interest.
> >
> > Interest is usually generated by unhappy users, and there isn't quite
> enough of
> > the world depending on IPv6 yet to create the necessary unhappiness. I'm
> not
> > pessimistic though: we just have to be patient, and eventually the
> pointy-haired
> > bosses will start to insist on fixing IPv6 bugs.
> And when they do, I want the IETF to support the efforts and put energy
> into it.
> We need IPv6 and dual stack to work properly in all applications.
>
> I don’t want the efforts of these pointy-haired-boss-supported engineers
> to be met
> like our work was handled. I know there’s a lot of more sexy stuff than
> fixing bugs in
> old protocols, but I am personally surprised that it has required so much
> time and effort
> to fix small issues. Considering we found the issues at SIPit almost five
> years ago and
> started to make noises about it, I’m disappointed that developers still
> haven’t got the
> needed information to code things right.
>
> We have found issues surrounding TLS use in SIP  at SIPit events, but the
> interest
> in fixing that seems even smaller. Based on my experience of the IPv6
> work, I am not
> sure I have the resources and energy to even start working with it funded
> by myself.
>
> > And it isn't just the IETF. Just to take a random example that bit me
> recently,
> > why doesn't the Python socket module define IPPROTO_IPV6? A tiny thing
> that is
> > easy to work around, but I gather it's been like that for years.
>
> Ouch.
>
> Documents (in response to Jari’s question)
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Here’s one (now expired) draft we put a lot of efforts into and it got
> stuck somewhere
> in dispatch or sipcore - the chairs couldn’t make up their mind what to do
> with it.
> I personally still feel that developers can get a lot of help by a
> document like this.
> This document was more of a foundation for the other work, an
> informational document
> based on experiences we found at SIPit and other tests.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klatsky-dispatch-ipv6-impact-ipv4-03

[MB] Olle - you may want to go back into your email archives (and I've just
re-forwarded it).  I sent an email to Carl and the draft authors on October
17th, 2013 to which there was never a response.  I'd be happy to forward to
this mailing list if you'd like.  That email makes it quite clear that the
actions are with the authors.
[/MB]

>
>
> The other draft got dispatched to the SIPcore wg, has gotten a review
> after a long time. We
> started working on an update based on the review in time for an IETF
> meeting
> (don’t remember which one) but then the WG meeting got cancelled and I
> think we lost energy
> there. Yes, we should pursue the work at some point.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-johansson-sip-dual-stack/
>
> The third one was never written, but discussed and planned. That’s the one
> where we discuss happy eyeballs for SIP transports. Basically “avoid UDP,
> it can’t easily be solved unless you use DNS records in a clever way."
>
> /O
>