On 1/10/11 7:36 PM, Ed Jankiewicz wrote:
upon reflection, I agree that it would be unnecessary and inappropriate
to generate a petition within IETF. The process is built on consensus,
not name-checking.
Suffice it to say I support this work being discussed within Intarea and
v6ops, including time on the agenda in Prague, and eventual adoption as
a WG or IAB publication.
I also agree with a previous comment that this draft should be kept very
simple with a small number of essential references, e.g. to the IPv6
Node Requirements (as revised). That is the current best definition of
what is required for IPv6. If it is insufficient as is, and needs to
be replaced by a standards track definition, that would take some
effort, and that can be discussed as well. I would prefer that we
publish the current RFC 4294 update draft before we open that can of worms.
The question of parity is very complex and difficult to define.
more to the point consensus on what constitutes is a discussion that's
pretty easy to rathole. A statement that is simplistic and open to
interpretation may not achieve all that you want at the same time the
resulting statement may be more readily achievable and we have documents
like for example the cpe drafts to addresses.
Idealy this document is:
1. discussed now both here and the int-area.
2. presented in prague
3. accepted as a wg document where we deem appropiate
4. last called
The
concerns that some things are not directly comparable, or that there are
things that have become accepted in IPv4 that some don't want to
replicate in IPv6, versus the sense that the lack of any feature
(standard or not) will be a disincentive to IPv6 adoption - it's not
clear how these can be reconciled.
On 1/10/2011 11:29 AM, George, Wes E [NTK] wrote:
Shortened the subject line a bit
From: int-area-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf
Of Ed Jankiewicz
Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 3:11 PM
To: int-area@ietf.org; IPv6 Operations
Subject: Re: [Int-area] IP-capable nodes must support IPv6 - new
draft-george-ipv6-required
I agree so strenuously that I half-jokiningly would like to be listed
as a
coauthor, and I bet there are anumber of other folks on these lists
that
would feel the same way. Perhaps a better suggestion would be
toinclude an
appendix with the name and affiliation of everyone who is willing to
sign-on
to ratify thisrecommendation.
[WES] If I'm interpreting this right, this would sort of be like a
petition
with lots of signatures, or one of those open letters to the
$government_functionary signed by lots of important people you see
published
in full-page newspaper ads? I assume that this is generally a way of more
concretely documenting support for this proposal beyond the IETF's
standard
rough consensus in a WG meeting or on-list.
I'm open to this, but is there any precedent for it? Do we want to set a
precedent that if we *really* mean something, we take steps to more
thoroughly
document that support within a draft? Those in support can already
have their
support immortalized in the pages of the email list archives complete
with
their choice of editorialization...
And regarding affiliation - IETF typically shies away from making a
big deal
of affiliation, since most of its members are not really authorized to
represent the company that pays the bills in any official public
capacity.
Yes, they are representatives of that company, but they are mostly
speaking
for themselves with the interests of their company informing those
comments -
it's not like there's a way to get every email and comment at the mic
approved
by PR first :-)
An IAB statement of support would perhaps be a good way to add weight
to this
recommendation, but I'm content to start with statements of support
for WG
adoption and advancement to RFC status and see where it goes from there.
Wes George
___
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
