Re: [spring] Long-standing practice of due-diligence is expected - Re: CRH is not needed - Re: How CRH support SFC/Segment Endpoint option?

[Sander Steffann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

> What I find so bizarre is –
> 
> You have an multiple operators – who have clearly said – we want this – we see advantage of this.  Yet still the obstructionism and denialism continues.  The “not invented here” syndrome seems to run deep – and email after email is patently ignored from the very people who have to buy the hardware.  Reference is made to Montreal – yet the emails that stated the use cases after it went by with no response.  No technical objections ever show up – other than – we don’t want this and you haven’t given us this mythical architecture document – which was yet another non-technical response that seems so clearly designed to stall any innovation that doesn’t come from one source.

This makes me think back to the days of telcos. You know, the world where telcos defined the protocols and the users just had to accept their choices... The world where TCP/IP flourished because it allowed permissionless innovation (which is the very thing that the IETF says it's all about to their supporters on https://www.ietf.org/about/support/).

And look where we are today. The IETF as the place where innovation is shot down because it might compete with "IETF sanctioned" standards. The IETF has turned IP into ISO's OSI stack of today.

> Yet again – I support crh – I’ve deployed CRH – CRH works for us – and we still continue to support it.  And irrespective of if it is adopted – the development of it will continue – and it will exist – the only question is – do we end up with something that the market wants outside of the auspices of the IETF – or do we end up with something that is properly standardized, because this level of obstructionism will not prevent the development.

Yep. That's what happens to those standing in the way of permissionless innovation: at some point the users (operators) have had enough and will fight what they believe in, ignoring the outdated standards bodies that hold them back.

If the IETF can't provide permissionless innovation anymore it has no reason to exist.
Sander