The underlying point of my note was:
One would think that a 15-year project that was pursued to solve a
fundamental Internet limitation but has achieved such poor adoption
and use
would motivate some worrying about having made some poor decisions. A
quick response that says "we talked about that" but says no more seems a
little bit facile.
Yet your response continues down the path of "What was decided was
fine. So let's dismiss expressions of concerns about it by citing a
previous decision, as if that choice was inevitable." In particular,
my point was that a v6-specific API was not immediately required.
perhaps not. but without such an API, software would not have been able
to migrate. so at the point when people started to actually want to use
the extended addresses, the software would not have been there.
To repeat: At some point, it would help to take history as being
instructive, rather than to dismiss attempts at considering alternatives.
yes. but it's not instructive to pick apart the solution that was
chosen and claim that some other solution would have produced a better
result, without applying similar analysis to the alternative.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf