Re: 6MAN WG Adoption Call: draft-nordmark-6man-rs-refresh-01

[Erik Nordmark <[e-mail]>]

On 4/22/15 7:19 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>
>         Perhaps the issue here is that we don't agree on a problem
>         statement, or more accurately, what we're trying to accomplish
>         with this drafts.
>
>
>     You've said that for > 2 years now, but never provided any useful
>     suggestions.
>
>
> But it's impossible for me, or anyone else, to provide a useful 
> suggestion without a problem statement.
Lorenzo,

I hope you are seeing that you are going in circles. You ask for a 
problem statement, and when I point you at one (such as the Goals 
section in this draft), you say it is insufficient for what you think it 
should say. When I ask what you want it to include you say it is 
impossible for you to help since an acceptable (to you) problem 
statement isn't written yet.


I think the fundamental difference in opinion between you and me on this 
subject is that you don't care of communities that work on hosts that 
sleep on schedule end up doing whatever they want to IPv6 Neighbor 
Discovery (at least you have said at the mike that you don't care about 
those types of devices - and that they can go to some other WG). Thus 
time and again you dismiss any arguments relating to such hosts. Such an 
attitude is likely to cause fragmentation of the protocols and 
implementations for IPv6.

I really really really want to avoid fragmenting IPv6 and ND into 
different protocols for different types of devices. I think such 
fragmentation is harmful to IPv6 and its application across a large set 
of networks and devices - many of which do not yet use IP technology.

I hope there are others in the IPv6 working group that care about 
avoiding fragmentation while applying IPv6 to different IoT devices and 
other constrained devices, and the call for WG adoption of this draft 
seem to already have half a dozen supporters. That is promising to those 
of us that want to avoid fragmentation.

Regards,
    Erik