Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:52:00 -0400
From: Alex Conta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To be even less politically correct ...
| The IPv6 WG is not a preferential club, or an exclusivist group. The
| IPv6 WG is not to tell the IETF what standard is good and what standard
| is bad.
That is true, but
| While the IPv6 WG develops IPv6, IT MUST ENSURE that IPv6 works
| with, and it supports the other IETF standards.
that is simple nonsense.
There are all kinds of IETF standards around - a proportion of them are
utter crap. In general, that is no problem - the vast majority of the
rubbish that is proposed, worked on, and then progressed can simply be
ignored - I know it is never going to affect me, because I am going to
ignore it forever.
But, if you're trying to tell us all that we have to go look at every IETF
standard (and by that I assume you mean PS and up, as there aren't actually
all that many full standards) and make sure that they are supported by IPv6,
then you're way off base.
Rather, if there are people who actually care about the other work, and need
it to be supported, and they don't think it is, then they need to come to
ipngwg (or whatever the name is this week) and argue for it. Make a persuasive
case for some proposal, and whatever support is needed & possible is likely
to appear. On the other hand, if ipngwg doesn't accept your request, then
tough.
Up to this point, exactly the right thing had been happening here, with the
request, and the debate (with no clear decision yet that I could make out).
But attempting to tell the WG that our hands are tied because some other
WG claims to need some feature or other is way off base. The equivalent
would be if ipngwg sent a message to diffserv saying that they had to make
things work with nothing more than a random number, addresses, and
encrypted payload, because that's all they're getting - after all, IPv6
is a much more mature standard than diffserv. By your reasoning, diffserv
would be compelled to support IPv6 that way.
I actually treat this message as a concession that there are no strong
enough arguments that can be made to ipngwg that would cause model (c)
for the flow label to be adopted.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
