Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AABA21A01D4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:25:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.172
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham
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 SVk-eDEeC5xw for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com (shell-too.nominum.com [64.89.228.229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508141A01E6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:25:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68EDA1B803B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624CC19005C; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.146.119] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 08:25:07 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2KFOi_hW3CCSbcT-uPQSwsUyE06cY3r8=CuunSbnz_xw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:25:05 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <D701ADC0-EA9F-48DD-933F-9E02ACF3EBD4@nominum.com>
References: <534BF5A5.5010609@viagenie.ca> <20140415083615.GB43641@Space.Net> <534D3672.3060702@viagenie.ca> <3446106.k0lm12lQ8b@linne> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404161034220.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr2D+ZMi-UctuvrMzyqoHqgBy5O26GODT=bRwq0PsvLgLw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1404161053110.10236@uplift.swm.pp.se> <m1WaMBx-0000BSC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <E772899C-8505-4436-8594-380799F91BA0@nominum.com> <CAKD1Yr2KFOi_hW3CCSbcT-uPQSwsUyE06cY3r8=CuunSbnz_xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/eZbT9M2FaT9yMOx9QZrUxmROjsc
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Please review the No IPv4 draft
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 15:25:14 -0000

On Apr 16, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
> I think that doesn't work, actually. What happens instead is that someone raises an issue, and you say that they're wrong. :-)

Hm.   Well, I think the objection that's been raised that's most compelling is "why bother?"   Philip's issues are technical, but they aren't objections, in the sense that he hasn't pointed out an oversight in the spec that means it can't be implemented or won't work.

We've gotten some good feedback that the document isn't clear enough, particularly with respect to how multiple interfaces are handled, and we've gotten some good feedback about how to handle validity of the assertion that IPv4 shouldn't be used, and about how to deal with various attacks that could be launched by shutting down IPv4.   The authors have agreed that there is work to do, and it sounds like they're going to do it.   I felt like that part of the conversation was productive and beneficial.

However, there's also been a lot of discussion about whether to use DHCPv4 or IPv6 configuration protocols for signaling, and that hasn't been so useful, because it's recapitulating discussions that have occurred previously, and revisiting a decision the working group already made, for reasons that are explained in the draft.

I never know how to deal with discussions like this.   I personally favor an open communications model where I actually say why I don't think the objections are useful, over a model where I just ignore them.   However, as we've seen, when people repeatedly re-assert the same point, it tends to drown out the useful part of the conversation, and when I say "no, that point isn't useful in this part of the discussion because FOO," people re-assert the point with slightly different wording rather than saying "oh, Ted might have a point, let me think about it."   So in that sense, me saying "that's not a valid point" isn't constructive.

This type of interaction, where we wind up endlessly re-stating the same point, is one of the failure modes of the IETF.   To the extent that I've been a part of it, I apologize, but I still don't know how to address the tradeoff between open communications and ignoring redundant comments.