SIP now IPv6

yakov@watson.ibm.com Sun, 27 December 1992 16:41 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04924; 27 Dec 92 11:41 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04920; 27 Dec 92 11:41 EST
Received: from Sun.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07307; 27 Dec 92 11:44 EST
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (zigzag-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26985; Sun, 27 Dec 92 08:41:04 PST
Received: from sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA04151; Sun, 27 Dec 92 08:41:03 PST
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engmail1) by sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA14368; Sun, 27 Dec 92 08:40:51 PST
Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12002; Sun, 27 Dec 92 08:40:55 PST
Received: from watson.ibm.com by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26981; Sun, 27 Dec 92 08:40:51 PST
Message-Id: <9212271640.AA26981@Sun.COM>
Received: from YKTVMV by watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4859; Sun, 27 Dec 92 11:40:53 EST
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 11:40:24 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: yakov@watson.ibm.com
To: peter@goshawk.lanl.gov, vcerf@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Cc: hwb@upeksa.sdsc.edu, dlynch@interop.com, Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr, postel@isi.edu, sip@caldera.usc.edu, ip-encaps@sunroof.eng.sun.com, iana@isi.edu, iab@isi.edu
Subject: SIP now IPv6
Content-Length: 2030

Ref:  Your note of Sat, 26 Dec 92 19:09:32 MST

>Also, remember that the IESG is due to provide a recommendation
>to the IAB later this year.

Peter,
There are *only* 5 days left in *this* year. That number makes
me a bit skeptical about the likelyhood of the IESG producing
a recommendation in 1992. I also think it would be highly
unwise for the IESG  to produce a recommendation that would
pick up a particular proposal as the IPv7 without prior
large scale deployment of the proposal.

What follows is an e-mail exchange between myself and Dave
Crocker (the mail was exchanged in the "criteria" mailing list;
my mail is marked with ">>", Dave's response with ">"):

>>   May be one way to accomplish this is to say that the IETF *is not*
>>   going to vote on IPv7, but would rather leave this to the marketplace.
>>   Instead, the IETF would just provide an environment where different
>>   proposals for IPv7 would be developed, tested and reviewed. The role
>>   of the IETF should also be the place where the "rough edges" of many
>>   of the proposals could be worked off. It is unfortunate that presently
>
>This seems to be exactly what is, in fact, happening.  The framework,
>however, is not strictly laissez faire.  I believe that the pressure of
>milestones, coordinated public presentations & demonstrations, and general
>sense of on-going review within the IETF provides a real-world filter.
>
>I consider this to be "letting the market decide" but with the IETF providing
>leadership to the market process.

That suggests that the IESG should make an official statement
explaning that the IETF's role in selecting a particular IPv7
will be focused in the area of "milestones, coordinated public
presentations & demonstrations, and on-going review". The statement
should explicitly say that the IETF is not expected to select
any particular proposal as IPv7 in the near future.
By doing this, the IESG would provide the recommendation that is
likely to be in the best interest of the whole IETF community.
Yakov.