IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Apology

Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> Tue, 26 February 2019 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jan@go6.si>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3055130E84 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:35:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=go6.si
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 oksBCBvq_BxU for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.go6lab.si (mx.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0D2B130EA7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:35:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18D965FE3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:35:48 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at go6.si
Received: from mx.go6lab.si ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.go6lab.si [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id v04vcIOeCGa8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:35:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.go6.si (mail.go6.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.go6.si", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (not verified)) by mx.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B70BA65FCB for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:35:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ISOC-BMDKQ4.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4:102:182a:e622:682:93c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "Jan Zorz", Issuer "COMODO RSA Client Authentication and Secure Email CA" (not verified)) (Authenticated sender: jan) by mail.go6.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8234D80583 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:35:47 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=go6.si; s=mail; t=1551195347; bh=sfrMA2RW6QC9jKXVTZ+WnaSBVHKyyuFB7GnVZAtaUgw=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=GMZESAHrJhFY2byW4o9lSs0oidZkA97wTwG4um1BhtIwt/BkglP3sbkH5W7mIkJfY cEotTfVhbUdsVntGCagxnuGk+g458DldobM/o1VU2I1+V2n8S6hdpaLRhvL2giWhQF 6PBhid7krm86OCHOn9s0NP1B4EoSGx+1UfOQtE5Q=
Subject: Re: Apology
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <7d6009ff-bb1a-df18-99c6-6ba1dbbdccfe@asgard.org> <3C1D9767-548D-4BA2-A5E4-3EF57738C4DD@employees.org>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si>
Message-ID: <b2d536f5-c299-3a73-bf46-ce11ed373186@go6.si>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:35:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3C1D9767-548D-4BA2-A5E4-3EF57738C4DD@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aTPVxayg0hr_SEdvOG18jYZdY4Q>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:35:57 -0000

Dear @all,

On 25/02/2019 09:37, Ole Troan wrote:> 6man is a long lived working 
group, tasked with maintaining the IPv6
> specifications. That’s different from the typical IETF working group.
> Perhaps it is time to have a wider debate about how the working group
> should function and what it’s role should be.

This is an important discussion to have. Can we define first what 
exactly "maintaining the IPv6 specifications" mean?

Is this about being a guardian making sure that IPv6 protocol doesn't 
change? IPv6 was defined many many years ago and meanwhile the reality 
of networking architectures and deployments changed a lot...

In my mind, protocol development should go in circles...

Protocol development and standardization (IETF) -> Vendors 
implementation in HW/SW -> Operators deployment in networks -> Feedback 
from real world back to IETF from operators (through vendors or direct) 
-> IETF adjusts protocol to real world requirements -> Vendors -> etc...

Where did things go wrong? Why? Did they go wrong in first place? ;)

Cheers, Jan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email