IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 28 February 2020 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD3A3A0D28; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:06:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 sjpoanaK4831; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:06:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 177F03A0D29; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 19:06:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.10] (unknown [181.45.84.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 123A982D50; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 04:06:44 +0100 (CET)
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Cc: Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, Robert Raszuk <robert@raszuk.net>, architecture-discuss@iab.org, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>
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> <CAMm+LwjYB95aczwa0TLtHE2FBT=XkkPKo4_mTnqCWAsfAk=4hQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <607b9e61-58c5-a54d-c99f-1bf0570ad0c3@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:04:41 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwjYB95aczwa0TLtHE2FBT=XkkPKo4_mTnqCWAsfAk=4hQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/8XYW2NcP5opOdl-dQjmvktVw7vg>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] [arch-d] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 03:06:56 -0000

On 27/2/20 23:18, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 8:52 PM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com 
> <mailto: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.

Huh? What does OSI ahve to do with that???  I'm referring to existing 
IETF process to publish a spec.

And that's the procedure/rules that are normally applied to some of us, 
mere mortals that don't happen to be working for a big vendor.



> 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.

Then I suggest you email the webmaster at www.ietf.org, because the text 
there must be outdated, then.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email