From: Brian E Carpenter
[mailto:brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
I don't understand the tone of complaint in the above. The
IETF *has* put 6PE on the table: RFC 4798 is a Proposed
Standard. That's where the IETF's role ends - this is one of
the mechanisms for IPv6 coexistence, among which the market
can choose.
If we want to see deployment then maybe the IETF role should not end there. Or
maybe the IETF should take a more active role in the handover process to those
we hope to deploy.
There is a big difference between a change to a specification like S/MIME or
HTTP where all we need to do is to get the software providers round the table
to effect a change and an infrastructure standard.
I would like to see some more formal interaction between the principal
standards bodies: IETF, W3C, OASIS and the industry groups that can help effect
a change. The only group where there seems to be much crossover at the moment
is to NANOG. We can get a heck of a lot more leverage by talking to groups like
Jericho Forum, MAAWG, FSTC, APWG, etc.
And the dialog needs to be bidirectional. There are several IETF projects that
have gone on for a long time, in one case a decade which appear to me to be
profoundly misguided from a deployment and architectural point of view. That
does not worry me much if they are spending their time, but when they propose
their scheme as a platform others can build on, and MUST build on because its
IETF, well there I see a problem.
Before sending NAT to historic I would like to see BEEP taken to the woodshed.
It was a misguided attempt at 'me too' that never built up the necessary base
of support. We should recognize that SOAP won that battle and move on.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf