Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported re: 202203261833.AYC

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Mar 31 20:48:44 UTC 2022


> On Mar 30, 2022, at 09:16 , Joe Maimon <jmaimon at jmaimon.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at least 2015.
>> 
>> Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t like your idea.
> 
> If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously problematic and a huge process failure.

Perhaps it’s more a question of the definition of “properly supporting” than whether or not to do so.

> When vendors do that sort of thing people get up in arms. When open source projects do that sort of thing, they get forked. When community grassroots governance bodies do that sort of thing, I dont want to find out.

My best guess is that the closest example is BSD and it’s tragedy of CARP.

> Responsible stewardship of internet community standardization would be excluding IPv6 strategic concerns from considerations of consensus on IPv4 issues.

We can agree to disagree about this. If enough people agree with you, perhaps you can get consensus for that. If enough people agree with me, perhaps not.

> In other words, if the only issues you can bring to bear on any matter pertaining solely to IPv4 is all about IPv6, your not relevant to the process and should be struck from the record.

You are entitled to your opinion.

> I would even go so far as to say that you are actually poisoning the process.

Now you’re bordering on ad hominem.

>> Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It might simply be a lack of merit in your ideas.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
> This part is very good advice, perhaps restated as a lack of merit in the idea when combined with much wider and diverse perspectives.
> 
> On the other hand, with no record and history of ideology driven agendas, the IETF process would be a whole lot more trustworthy.

There’s no such thing as a human process without ideology driven agendas, so it’s hard to take such a comment seriously.

Owen



More information about the NANOG mailing list