knowing the technical background (was: Re: L2VPNs must not be IP(v4)-only)
thank your for this mail. I experienced the same problem as your TCP
and IPv4/IPv6 example with linguistic issues and globalization
upgrading to multilingualisation. BCP 47 should not be
internationalization only. Except that in my case the non informed
lobby is attempting market dominance, what is not the case for IPv4.
From these examples I would add three remarks:
- it is not that easy to teach something you are yourself working on
and when opposed for non technical reasons. We identified that the
proposed IETF position was hurting the architectural principles we
worked on for the users. This was not really important had it be a
quickly forgotten RFC. Howerver, the IANA (and the IANA's future) was
involved and that would badly teach the market. The lesson is that we
should make a difference between documents for information, for
standardisation, and for registration by the IANA (affecting
technologies options for a long time - in this case still much more
than the DNS or IPv6).
- overall consistency is not easy to reach in the way the IETF works,
without a networking generalised model (such as the one I use for a
long) with a maintained structured documentation along that model.
For example, in your IPv6 area I spent days two years ago summarising
the issue for the IPv6 TF for the reasons you quote, having experts
reviewing it. I kept the feeling it was outdated when published, and
that IPv6 was something confuse, changing, and bottom-up from a very
limited set of non authoritative and sometimes conflicting visions. I
am sure it is possible to say the same thing in a compact, crystal
clear, and authoritative updated document (showing many not explored
possibilities). At this stage I found no one having a full command of
the whole IETF doctrine. When I read IAB texts on languages and
multuilingualisation, I feel exactly the same way as you feel about
IPv6 and some WGs.
- there is obviously an ethical issue in the way WGs work. If
invention is involved it must start from an open minded clean sheet
study of the issue. Not from the pre-position of some members. Also,
BCP should be based upon a review of all the existing real practices or works.
I hoped the IAB mailing list on possible future architectures would
permit to make some progress into the direction of a networking
generalised model, in order to investigate further on the evolution
of each of its components. This has not happened. IMHO, this shows
the problem is with the IAB and the way the Charters are reviewed and
respected. As long as the IESG does not ask first "does that I-D
fulfils the intents of the WG-Charter" and the WG do not propose
Charter changes when they feel necessary, we will have that kind of
technical culture and overall consistency problem.
At 07:15 18/08/2006, Keith Moore wrote:
[followup to a reply that wasn't cc'ed to the IETF list, but I think
it's relevant for the broader audience ]
Two of the fundamental tenets of education is: a) a willingness to
learn; and, more importantly, b) a willingness to teach/lead/show
others. No one in the L2VPN WG has expressed an unwillingness to
learn about IPv6; instead, no one within the WG (modulo Giles;
thanks Giles!), or elsewhere, has expressed a willingness to lead
the group in developing the requisite features required to support
IPv6 wrt ARP-MED.
Unfortunately, your impudent message has not demonstrated a
willingness to help lead the group wrt IPv6 support, leaving us no
further ahead than where we were before. It would be much more
productive if you could help contribute to the solution, rather
than cast broad criticism against the WG.
My message was not directed specifically to L2VPN. Really it was a
statement about IETF and the qualifications to do engineering in this space.
Several years ago when I was an AD I was shocked to find that the
principal participants in one of my working groups really didn't
know what IP was and only had the vaguest understanding of TCP.
Ietf mailing list