knowing the technical background (was: Re: L2VPNs must not be IP(v4)-onl

Dear Keith,
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 I kept the feeling it was outdated when published, and 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.
jfc

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