<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 14, 2021, at 13:51 , Michael Thomas <<a href="mailto:mike@mtcc.com" class="">mike@mtcc.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class=""><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/14/21 1:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:812542A5-D6FE-454C-AD41-E7644B5866A8@delong.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<br class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Sep 14, 2021, at 12:58 , Michael Thomas <<a href="mailto:mike@mtcc.com" class="" moz-do-not-send="true">mike@mtcc.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class=""><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/14/21 5:37 AM, Eliot
Lear wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:fd1eaea5-a4d7-0533-4fae-028cf35e7196@ofcourseimright.com" class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class=""><p class="">8+8 came <b class="">MUCH</b> later than
that, and really wasn't ready for prime time. The
reason we know that is that work was the basis of LISP
and ILNP. Yes, standing on the shoulders of giants.
And there certainly were poor design decisions in
IPv6, bundling IPsec being one. But the idea that
operators were ignored? Feh.<br class="">
</p>
</blockquote><p class="">I wasn't there at actual meetings at the time
but I find the notion that operators were ignored pretty
preposterous too. There was a significant amount of
bleed over between the two as I recall from going to
Interop's. What incentive do vendors have to ignore
their customers? Vendors have incentive to listen to
customer requirements and abstract them to take into
account things can't see on the outside, but to actually
give the finger to them? And given how small the
internet community was back while this was happening, I
find it even more unlikely. <br class="">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
You’d be surprised… Vendors often get well down a path before
exposing enough information to the community to get the negative
feedback their solution so richly deserves. At that point, they
have rather strong incentives to push for the IETF adopting
their solution over customer objections because of entrenched
code-base and a desire not to go back and explain to management
that the idea they’ve been working on for the last 6 months is
stillborn.</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote><p class="">But we're talking almost 30 years ago when the internet was tiny.
And it's not like operators were some fount of experience and
wisdom back then: everybody was making it up along the way
including operators which barely even existed back then. I mean,
we're talking about the netcom days here. That's why this stinks
of revisionist history to me.<br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I was there for parts of it. Even then, the vendors were entrenched in their views and dominated many of the conversations.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>