IPv6 represented working group consensus, yet it produced something
that has yet to gain critical mass in 15 years.
First, I think we are far afield if we are simply arguing about whether
working group consensus is necessary but not sufficient for protocol
success. Procedurally that is what we have to work with. Right?
More to your text above, there are many factors as to why IPv6 is not
broadly deployed. The simplest factor, however, has nothing to do with
complexity OR functionality: it's simply cheaper to not change
operationally until it's not. That is- economics has had, is having,
and will have its day. This means that we are on curves that may yet
well lead to broad IPv6 deployment. This would all be irrelevant but
for the fact that you raised an example that I believe will turn into a
counterargument to the one you are making Real Soon Now.
eliminate some functionality, such as the "testing" flag, the decision
algorithm can be made simpler. However, simplification of the decision
algorithm is not a suitable issue itself; it's something that may happen
as a result of other decisions made by the Working Group.
Complexity of design and its impact on interoperability is not a
"suitable issue"? Wherever did you get that view from, Jim?
We're down to a basic Occam's Razor discussion. What functionality do
you wish to eliminate that makes the state machine simpler, and does
that make the solution to the problem we are attempting to solve simpler
than is possible (meaning are we no longer solving the problem we agreed
to solve) and is there an issue open on that? Absent that issue, what
does it mean to simplify?
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to