Much as I normally dislike "me too" posts, John's summation below
captures quite well the concern I've also felt since the minute I
saw the IESG's announcement regarding rejection of the requested
IP option code point.
cheers,
gja
John C Klensin wrote:
[..]
Sigh. I'm going to try one last time. Probably I should just give up.
Bob and Keith,
As far as protocol changes, adding stuff to IP, etc., I am 100% in
agreement with you. We should be cautious, we should exercise
considerable diligence, we should not approve anything without
considerable evidence of informed IETF consensus. I can't figure out
how to say that more clearly.
_However_ if some rogue group comes along (and I hope that we are a long
distance from where Larry Roberts would be considered a "rogue group",
even though I have disagreed about some things he has advocated in the
past and may do so in the future) and has the resources and commitment
to deploy an IP option, I think we need to register it to protect the
community from the bad option, not pretend that not registering it will
somehow prevent them from deploying their ideas.
And then, if we are convinced the idea is bad enough, we need to do what
_will_ prevent the bad idea from being actively used, which is to do,
and write up the analysis of why it is bad and what problems it will cause.
But the notion that the IETF can prevent something from happening or
being deployed by declining to register it, or by turning our collective
backs on it without any real explanation -- even at the waist of the
hourglass-- is, in this world, just delusional. And, if that delusion
prevents the IETF community from explaining, carefully and in public why
the idea is a bad one, then it is we who are putting the Internet at risk.
john
--
Associate Professor Grenville Armitage
Director, Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures
http://caia.swin.edu.au
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf