Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

[Doug Barton <[e-mail]>]

On 07/02/2011 20:31, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> Randy,
>
> You have three points that deserve to be addressed. These are:
>
> 1) "as measured on the real internet, not the ietf bar, 6to4 sucks caterpillar snot"
> 2) "perhaps that minority was also vocal in the back room"
> 3) "yes, but that will be a year from now.  in the ietf, delay is one form of death"
>
> Responses follow:
>
> 1) While not stated so colorfully, draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory made this point. It has been approved for publication.
> 2) While there was no back-room activity,

You yourself mentioned that you were in private discussion with some who 
objected to the "historic" draft. There's nothing wrong with that, it's 
how the world works, and personally I would expect it of you. But please 
don't then turn around and say that it's not happening. :)

> an appeal had been filed at the WG level. Since WG consensus was stronger than IETF consensus, it is reasonable to assume that the appeal would be escalated to the IESG level if it was not approved at the WG level. So, any way you look at it, there would be delays.
> 3) The new document may not take a year to publish. Since it is a short draft, it could be produced in a few days. Once it is produced, we could immediately initiate a WG last call and an IETF last call immediately after that. So, we might be talking about a six-week delay.
>
> Now, I have a question for you, Lorenzo and Doug. If our goal is to take 6-to-4 off of the Internet, does not disabling it by default solve most of the problem? AFAIKS, very few users would enable it and service providers would not be economically incented to support 6-to-4 relay routers.

Speaking for myself, my goal is not to take STF off the Internet. My 
goal is to do everything we can to get the best possible IPv6 deployed 
in the most places as fast as possible. STF is a hindrance to that goal, 
so I'd like it to go away.

As I've said in the past, I was in the extreme wing of the WG that would 
have preferred to that we came down on the "turn it off, yesterday" 
side. So can I accept "off by default on the client side" as a step in 
the right direction? Sure, why not. But as others have pointed out the 
difference between that and "historic" is that the latter gives vendors 
active DIScouragement to support it at all. IMO that would be better. 
Much better.


Hope I answered your question,

Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/