[Int-area] Re: ipv8 proposal.

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Jamie,

Replying to [1] as one of the 2 INT Area Directors with Tommy Jensen.

In [1], you wrote "As far as where it goes the IETF area directors opinion is the same as Charles H. Duell, that they are not going to allow any thing different than their current 30yo protocol. "

I guess you refer to ""Everything that can be invented has been invented." per [2]

For the context, you privately contacted Tommy and me about AD sponsoring [3] your drafts (and this was the right thing to do). We replied also privately basically that while IPv6 deployment is not the one we collectively had hoped for, your proposal will face the same operational and business hurdles, so, we politely declined to AD sponsor your drafts. Moreover, for such a drastic change, AD sponsoring is not the way to go.

BUT, this does not mean at all that we intend to block your drafts. Area directors do not even have the ability to do so. I.e., feel free to follow the process to create an IETF Working Group (or perhaps an IRTF RG) with a Bird of Feather or perhaps better present your draft at DISPATCH (although it is not really aligned with ART/GEN/SEC).

I am interpreting your quoted sentence above as a token of your lack of understanding of the IETF processes, so, I can only refer you to RFC 2026 (or more generally to BCP9).

Now, replying as a plain IETF contributor and IPv6 engineer for many many years, I have indeed doubts whether the drafts will be able to pass the business and operational issues of deployment. But, again, my personal view won't prevent the publication.

Kind regards,

-éric

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/k0_p3ekqENr0Lwop7iQryPg7AQ8/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Holland_Duell
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-guidance-on-area-director-sponsoring-of-documents-20070320/