<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="">I have qualms about these drafts also. However, even if the IETF does not move forward with any of them (not even to adopt them as WG items), that doesn’t mean they never will. Times change. Circumstances change. The IETF has changed its position on several (IMO) key issues during its existence. Perhaps this will be one of those times.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Incidentally, if you take a look at <a href="https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IGKkL8IM1IptV4Q3Z3pko6OC1Xs/" class="">this post from Theodore Ts’o</a> he’s pretty much saying the same thing that Barry Shein said, that the IETF isn’t as good at policy as it is in producing protocol standards. (The thread it’s from started from a response to the publication of <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2008.txt" class="">RFC2008</a> as a Best Current Practice, in spite of “vigorous opposition”.)<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The other thing I wanted to say is for anyone who doesn’t know a lot about the IETF workings, the contributions of some of the authors of the Schoen drafts are recognized and respected in the IETF Transport Area. They’re not new to this stuff. They have “clue”. They do due diligence. They produce running code, and (IMO) are seeking rough consensus. I believe that in the IETF of, say, a quarter century ago, their drafts would have progressed further through the standards process. For various reasons, today’s IETF is different, but could still change its minds. I believe the authors of the Schoen drafts are capable of drumming up support for their ideas even if they don’t (immediately) become IETF drafts, and that the IETF might change its position on their ideas, as a result of such support.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">—gregbo<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 16, 2022, at 5:28 AM, Tom Beecher <<a href="mailto:beecher@beecher.cc" class="">beecher@beecher.cc</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">No quibble about the discussion happening on a NOG list, not at all. <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But frankly unless the proposal is even starting to move forward in the IETF process such that a standards change is possible, it's just noise. ( I don't predict that the draft being discussed ever gets that far anyways ; it has serious deficiencies.) </div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 6:53 PM Greg Skinner via NANOG <<a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" class="">nanog@nanog.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class="">I agree. iMO, this 240/4 issue is another one of those <a href="https://david.choffnes.com/classes/cs4700fa14/papers/tussle.pdf" target="_blank" class="">tussles in cyberspace</a>. But I don’t fault IETF people or anyone else who pursues technical solutions to these types of problems as long as they are open and honest about the limitations of these solutions.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Also, IMO, the value of having a discussion about this issue here (and other NOG forums) is to get the perspective of people who (generally speaking) deal more immediately with the problems the broader “online" population has with IETF-based technology.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">—gregbo<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 8, 2022, at 9:25 PM, <a href="mailto:bzs@theworld.com" target="_blank" class="">bzs@theworld.com</a> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="">I'm beginning to wonder if the internet will survive the ipv6 adoption<br class="">debates.<br class=""><br class="">Here's the real problem which you all can promptly ignore:<br class=""><br class="">The IETF et al are full of bright technical people who can design<br class="">protocols, packet formats, etc.<br class=""><br class="">But many of the major problems facing the internet are not, at their<br class="">core, engineering problems.<br class=""><br class="">They're in the realm of social, legal, marketing, politics, int'l<br class="">policy, governance, law enforcement, commerce, economics, sociology,<br class="">psychology, etc. which TBH as bright as many of the engineers et al<br class="">are these problems are way beyond their ken, occasional polymath<br class="">excepted.<br class=""><br class="">But first you have to admit you have a problem, and limitations.<br class=""><br class="">Shouting at the rafters about address space depletion etc while waving<br class="">RFCs may not quite do it.<br class=""><br class="">Similar can be said about spam, malware attacks, phishing, etc.<br class=""><br class="">Yet another cryptographic protocol probably won't save the day but as<br class="">the expression goes when all you have is a hammer the whole world<br class="">looks like a nail.<br class=""><br class="">-- <br class=""> -Barry Shein<br class=""><br class="">Software Tool & Die | bzs at <a href="http://theworld.com/" target="_blank" class="">TheWorld.com</a> | <a href="http://www.theworld.com/" target="_blank" class="">http://www.TheWorld.com</a><br class="">Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD<br class="">The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>