Dave,
On 2007-10-12 04:07, Dave Crocker wrote:
...
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.
No, I'm on the path of trying to be precise and accurate about
what was decided. Since it's engineering, it isn't perfect.
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.
The approach to IPv6 could have been vastly more incremental, so as to
make its adoption vastly less disruptive. But you have to start by
considering the benefits of such an approach.
Brian, the approach to IPv6 ignored protecting the installed base and
ignored finding a way to have the lowest possible barriers to adoption.
As 15 years of non-adoption has demonstrated, the value proposition for
adopters also was not compelling.
To repeat: At some point, it would help to take history as being
instructive, rather than to dismiss attempts at considering alternatives.
This might not change the situation with IPv6, but it could have an
effect on other, future work.
I can't possibly disagree with that, but my interest is in getting
the implemented code deployed before the IPv4 clock winds down.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf