> Your language is unfitting for professional discussion, > in my opinion. > > The issue having been raised, we should deal with it as > an engineering matter.
If it is an engineering matter, then perhaps the IETF should be left out of it, especially those particular people who created this problem. 10 years of source route-routing impacts in IPv4 resulted in source-routing eventually being disabled by vendors -- and then IETF grudgingly followed suit. Engineering disciplines in all other fields normally react to problems before consumers/vendors do. After that, nearly 10 years of warnings about the impact of source-routing in IPv6 having severe security impacts resulted in the IETF process ENTIRELY IGNORING THE SECURITY IMPACTS. You call that 'Engineering'? Engineering groups plan for safety ahead of the consumers -- in this case the network operators who will face these issues for years to come. IETF doesn't deserve the word Engineering, if this is the best they can do. If there is no mailing list for accountability, then perhaps one should be setup. Until then, I think it is very important for the IETF IPv6 forum to realize that engineering had nothing to do with the RH0 inclusion in IPv6. A few academics wanted the extra complexity, and they pushed it through. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
