ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: the iab & net neutrality

2006-03-26 15:57:41
On 3/25/06 7:47 PM, "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer(_at_)mcsr-labs(_dot_)org> wrote:
So my point was, I'd really like to take a chance on some IAB statements
about things that need to be stated about our architecture. They might be
ignored. Would the result be any worse?

This is a somewhat bothersome case, because the IAB *did* issue
an RFC explaining what many of the problems were with "Unilateral
Network Self-Address Fixing" (i.e. STUN).  They included a list
of conditions they felt that an UNSAF protocol had to meet in order to
be published, including a description of a transition mechanism away
from itself and towards something more robust.  I don't know what
more the IAB could have done in order to kill what I think is
a clearly pathological approach to NAT traversal (and I chaired the
working group that standardized it, so I accept a great deal of
responsibility for this mess), but if putting out a document that
says "These are the reasons that this isn't a good protocol" isn't
enough, well, I'm not sure.  But it seems to me that trying to
fix it this late in the process (my other .sig is "software longa,
hardware brevis") has less to do with architecture and more to do
with oncology.  

At any rate, I do think that in this case the IAB did do their job
and it was the rest of us louts who messed up.  And I'll tell you
where I think it happened: when we accepted the idea that something
might be transitional and would eventually go away.

Melinda
 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>