kre;
| Note that I would consider it entirely reasonable for the IESG to say
that
| something "conflicts with work in the IETF" on the grounds that its
| deployment would break the Internet, since preserving the stability of
the
| Internet is a fundamental part of _all_ IETF work.
I cannot agree with that. Preserving the stability of the internet is
the responsibility of the internet operators. There's nothing the IETF
can do, one way or the other, to affect that. There may be times when
the internet operators seek assistance in developing protocols to assist
with particular problems, but that doesn't make solving them the IETF's
responsibility.
Agreed.
Given that the specific problem is on assignment of IPv6 hop-by-hop
option value for QoS assurance, there is nothing for IESG to worry
about, because IPv6 is not really deployed.
Let the operators decide.
It should be noted that the decision by the most operators is
that IPv6 does not worth deploying.
So, I can argue that, this time, IESG behaved very properly to
discard IPv6 by discouraging further effort on it.
However, I can also argue that TCP congestion control mechanisms
for best effort traffic has little to do with QoS assured
communication.
Masataka Ohta
PS
The fundamental problem is that management framework to have been
making IETF products less timely and less useful can not produce
timely and useful ways to improve IETF. Actually, IETF has been
damaged by increasing steering power of IESG.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf