On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir(_at_)checkpoint(_dot_)com>
wrote:
<snip>
I think that an endorsement like "I work for Cisco and we intend to
implement this in every one of our products" is useful. But it's not nearly
as useful as "this is a terrible idea, and doing this will prevent IPv6 from
ever gaining traction". The objections raised in last call are really the
point, not the endorsements.
Think I've read somewhere that the ground of good engineering (the E
in IETF) are being able to argue against your own idea, search and
look for flaws in it, and all in the name of testing it to see how it
can be made even better, is it good enough? Or simple to consider the
bigger picture, can my idea hurt the rest no matter how good it is?
There are great and very good ideas out there that isolated are
fantastic, but considered in just a bit bigger picture are horrible,
they've ruin everything around them.
I agree. IPv4 forever using CGNs may work for a lot of people and a lot of
uses. If people remain double- or triple-natted it won't matter a bit to the
big web sites.
It's far more important to hear what is not going to work with this solution.
It's great if you can find such deficiencies in your own ideas, but we still
need design reviews, code reviews, QA departments and IETF last calls so that
others can get at your idea.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf