Subject: RE: When to DISCUSS?

From: Peter Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:23:31 -0700

Scott,

If IPv8 meets all of the criteria of an IETF protocol it should be
labeled as an IETF protocol.   I don't remember the verb "blessed" being
operational in the IETF, perhaps I should reread the RFCs for it.

The point is, instead of people peering into the future in a star
chamber, one can presume that the world is inhabited by rationale actors
and the "right outcomes" will occur.

Let's ask a different question:  what is the empirical evidence for  "
There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions is
very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases, pushing
for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate."?  Is there a
demonstrable case/occasion for this point?

It seems that maintaining the charter to spec-ing and establishing
interoperable Internet protocols should be a guiding principle.

Regards, peterf

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Scott W Brim
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 08:56
To: Yakov Rekhter
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: When to DISCUSS?

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 08:21:57AM -0700, Yakov Rekhter allegedly wrote:
> > There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed solutions
is
> > very good for the future of the Internet, and in those cases,
pushing
> > for Foo even when Bar is just as good is quite legitimate.
> 
> Limiting the number of deployed solutions should be done based
> on the operational experience/market forces, and not by ADs/IESG
> pushing for a particular solution.

So you would have blessed IPv8?

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:52:16 -0700

> From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> There are occasions when limiting the number of deployed 
> solutions is very good for the future of the Internet, and in 
> those cases, pushing for Foo even when Bar is just as good is 
> quite legitimate.

I have no argument at all when the IESG suggests a previously deployed
approach over an undeployed approach or promotes one deployed approach
over another or one undeployed approach over another.

What I do have a real problem with is being told that I have to adopt
approach which depends on undeployed infrastructure when there is an
alternative approach that does not require new infrastructure.

It is only common sense to tell people not to reinvent TCP. Telling
people that they have to wait for the existing DNS infrastructure to
support new record types is not an acceptable demand.