Subject: Re: Question for IPv6 w.g. on [Re: IPv6 Type 0 Routing Header issues]

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 11:03:30 +0200

Theo,

Congratulations. You've joined the other 20 or so people
whose mail my machine will delete unread from now on.

    Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Roger Jorgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 11:56:48 +0200 (CEST)

> whose mail my machine will delete unread from now on.

what about keeping those sort of personal stuff out of this (and other) 
and other mailinglist? I care zip about you or him, I'm here on this list 
to follow a discussion about something a bit more important.

-- 

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              | - ROJO9-RIPE  - RJ85P-NORID
[email-masked]           | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 13:59:14 +0000

theo, i feel your pain.  but at the heart of your issues there's a logic error
or perhaps two, and it's turning your input here into a distractive sideshow.

the first error i saw was when you wanted to prevent certain people from 
having input into ietf decision making based on engineering errors they'd
made in the past.  i've made plenty of engineering errors in the past, some
of which are enshrined in rfc's, yet i know i learned from those errors and
am a better engineer for the learning.  it's unwise to assume that someone
who has erred is thus never again going to be useful, and also impractical
to assume that noone else will listen to that person when forming consensus
around new issues as they come up, no matter what errors they've made.

the second and more important error is to assume that ietf is relevant.  if
you look carefully you'll see that the SSH protocol has been shaped far more
by your OpenSSH effort than by the ietf or any commercial vendors, and SMTP
likewise more by Sendmail and Postfix than by ietf or any commercial vendors,
and DNS likewise more by BIND than by ietf or any commercial vendors.  in the
old days, ietf consensus could make or wreck an idea.  these are not those
days.  compared to the power and relevance of open source software, ietf may
as well be declared dead for all the relevance it has at this stage.

again, i feel your pain.  i'm still shaking my head over the lost opportunity
that was A6/DNAME, and i've watched with horrified fascination as DNSSEC has
taken over a dozen years to become the undeployable laboratory toy it is.  i
meant every word of <http://fm.vix.com/internet/governance/bonjour-fwd.html>
and i understand perfectly well where your rage is coming from.  but you've
gotta stop harping on it and looking for folks to blame personally, it's not
helping and it's not going to help and it's hurtful and going to hurt more.