On 27/2/20 23:18, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 8:52 PM Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com
<mailto:fg...@si6networks.com>> wrote:
On 27/2/20 20:58, Robert Raszuk wrote:
>
[...]
>
> We need to ask ourselves what is more important ... quality of data
> plane for end users with 10s of ms of connectivity restoration times
> upon failure or keeping original IPv6 dogmas in place where folks
never
> envisioned such needs or technologies to be invented.
I don't care myself about dogmas.
But there's an established process to do these things:
* You propose to change the existing behavior, and normally explain
what's that beneficial, and maybe you elaborate on why you are not
pursuing any possible alternatives.
* Once you gain consensus on the changes, you apply them.
That was the OSI model.
Huh? What does OSI ahve to do with that??? I'm referring to existing
IETF process to publish a spec.
And that's the procedure/rules that are normally applied to some of us,
mere mortals that don't happen to be working for a big vendor.
The Internet was based on a model of permisive experimentation.
The IETF is a catalyst for generating the necessary critical mass for
deployment. But some deployments don't need a catalyst.
Then I suggest you email the webmaster at www.ietf.org, because the text
there must be outdated, then.
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
