Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 28 May 2020 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 B89753A0EB3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 06:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.669
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 D4NoaOZhaypM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2020 06:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 EA2D63A0EBE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 06:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 04SDdLV3045532 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:39:21 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id B2EC220A416 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:39:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90E920A3F1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:39:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.11.240.12] ([10.11.240.12]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 04SDdF7K000884 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2020 15:39:19 +0200
Subject: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAO42Z2xDygUXTGwVunGSTMkZGMF8VePrPaXLSAJg14vAJdca5A@mail.gmail.com> <6DB604C0-2C29-44A8-AB01-DA697552C7DA@employees.org>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <15506073-19ca-10b3-1b2c-3dd29255933c@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 15:39:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6DB604C0-2C29-44A8-AB01-DA697552C7DA@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/e-agarrhzbXXWduouiqxV8xzMcs>
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: Thu, 28 May 2020 13:39:26 -0000

I am of the group who looked closely at routing header in the times when 
Pascal looked at it.

Now I stay away.  Routing header is a flexibility tool, there waiting to 
be exercised.  Yet its existence at the network layer has a potential to 
threaten the concept of the Internet at large.

It looks to me as something that could be dealt with either in a limited 
domain, or otherwise at the application layer.

I also admit that a WG needs new contributors, otherwise being at risk 
of ossification.

One might wonder why some WGs die while others last forever?

Alex

Le 28/05/2020 à 14:11, otroan@employees.org a écrit :
> Segment Routing (CRH, SRH and friends) isn't something 6man has traditionally dealt with.
> We have been more concerned about IPv6 in the open Internet, end to end, and not so much of technologies only applicable within a controlled domain.
> 
>>From that perspective, it is not surprising that this work attracts a different participant-set than before.
> 
> It seems that a proxy war is being fought out in the working group.
> With both opponents and proponents of proposals closely aligned along company borders.
> 
> Best regards,
> Ole, with the dystopian hat on.
> 
> 
>> On 28 May 2020, at 13:23, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've been an active participant in the ipng, 6man and v6ops IETF working groups since 2002.
>>
>> While I've only been to one IETF meeting in person since then (106, sponsored by the Internet Society), over that time I've come to recognise the names of many of the regular and active participants in these IPv6 working groups.
>>
>> I do not recognise many of the names of people who are objecting to the 6man working group adopting the CRH draft.
>>
>> Those who have been active 6man participants in recent years would know that even an ID adopted by 6man, written by Bob and Brian, that had a number of revisions, didn't survive WG last call, and that occurred while Bob was (as he still is) one of the 6man WG chairs.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mark.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>