Re: SIP now IPv6

[[e-mail]]

Those of you who don't want to read this can  simply skip it.   -- peter



























>>> Peter,
>>>     
>>>     To take a pure researchers point of view in light of the current 
>>>     IPv7 firestorms is unrealistic.    The IPv7 issue is one that is 
>>> 
>>> I just re-reach Steve's note and failed to find his labeling his
>>> view as restricted, e.g., to one of a researcher.  Further, I'm not
>>> a researcher and I concur with every point he made.
>>> So, Peter, please explain why you put your response in those terms?

Dave,  Since you clipped off the second sentence it is possible that you 
did not give yourself a chance to understand my note.    My point is
that this is not a simple, theoretical, mechanistic system that we 
are working in (whence the reference to research in my note).  It is 
one where we are under strict public scrutiny (which we should be!).   
In light of that I have proposed that announcements from the I**5 be
made with  sufficient context for the lay public to understand and 
minimize the chance of misinterpretation.  Surely you do not disagree
that we should do our best to keep everyone as well informed as
possible?  I believe the mechanisms of getting IPv6 are distinct from
what many will read into a "new IP" declaration.  It was necessary and
correct to get a new version number for IP and I have been on record to
that effect since at least the DC IETF.  

>>> 
>>>     It is also the case that the "management" of Internet 
>>>     engineering efforts is in flux and unfortunately the 
>>> 
>>> For all of the flux, the IESG continues with the same mission (yes, plus
>>> more) of overseeing development processes.  Nothing has changed with
>>> respect to that function.  No doubt, things are changing, but they
>>> have been in constant change.  And we haven't felt the need to freeze
>>> work until change stops.  Why now?
>>> 

I did not suggest that work stop.  In fact, I am advocating that everyone
put a little extra effort into announcements, explanations, etc.  Hardly
a request for a work stoppage.

>>>     this light that I think more context should be provided on
>>>     announcements, in fact any announcement, from the I**5.  Although I am
>>> 
>>> I happen to agree with your desire for more public statements.

I did not think we were arguing until I got this last note.  

>>> 
>>> But my greatest concern is that I can't figure out what
>>> "I**5" means and it looks like a wonderful notation.
>>> 

I**5 == {ISOC, IAB, IESG, IETF, IANA}

>>>     sure most of the 107 sip experts on the sip mailing list were
>>>     intimately aware of what was going on, there is probably at least one
>>>     who could stand to be educated by a longer note.
>>> 
>>> No doubt.  But a note which has a going-in position of asserting
>>> political chicanery hardly is designed to obtain clarification.  No?
>>> 

I am on record stating that the problem is one of appearance, and that 
it can be dealt with by providing more context to  announcements from 
the I**5.   It appears that you agree with this, so there is nothing 
to argue about here.

>>>     Perhaps there are politicians lurking in unrecognized places which need 
>>>     your prescription?
>>> 
>>> Great, Peter.  Very helpful.  This is just the sort of crack that is 
>>> designed to contribute greatly to the technical discussions.  Right?
>>>     

My note was written in agreement with Steve's comments on 
getting rid of the protocol politicians.  Given that you have already 
agreed with what Steve wrote, I would think we would also be in 
agrement here.

My comment was meant to point out that there are no sides in terms of
who are the protocol politicians for the sake of the IPv7 debates.
For better or for worse, I believe a significant part of the IPv7
debate is non-technical.  At its worst it is non-technical couched in terms
of a technical debate. 

Personally, I do not share many peoples thoughts that the fate of the
Internet should be determined on strictly technical grounds.  In 
general, I am opposed to technocracies.  The Internet, much like a good
deal of personal and business communication and commerce, will be as
much shaped by non-technical issues as technical issues.

>>> Dave

cheers,

peter