[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A Way Forward
I agree on this observation, but note that I would like to combine the
proposals of tli/rja and Christian.
I have to say that at least three stark contrasts -- that advanced by
tli/rja suggesting a new process, that advanced by Christian Huitema
(and apparently attractive to you) suggesting a parallelization of
and that advanced by Ohta-san, suggesting all-out warfare, each
have their alluring qualities (and some drawbacks), as well as
history within other parts of the IETF.
I think that a document like to above would be useful, but I do not see
what the road after this would be. I agree with the statements above,
and indirectly this to me implies that we have failed with the design
of IPv6. Now in a way that might be a reasonable statement depending on
your needs, but at the same time it does little to help us move forward.
There is also an unstated but discussed-in-the-background
approach of developing consensus over a document stating that:
- scalable site-multihoming IS in the critical path of deployment
- the problem is not currently well-understood within the IETF
- there are many ideas about the problem, and about its solution
- there are no known working-code/tested solutions
- there is no agreed way to evaluate such solutions properly anyway
- however, some are worth development & experimentation
(even those that would require a fundamental revisiting of
the architectural underpinnings of IPv6 by the Internet Area)
- some are plainly stupid
- "we tried and failed"
Which approach to support officially is not clear to me right now,And I think we therefor need this discussion on where we want to move.
Maybe you are right and we will come to the conclusion above. As I said
before, I would consider reaching consensus on failure and that there
is no way forward an achievement as well. But I am just a bit to
stubborn to give up just yet.
although *personally* I am leaning towards the last one. Since that
approach can be done later if necessary ("we tried twice and failed"...
"we tried n times and failed"), I shall probably continue to hover in
background until what looks like a very very very rough consensus
starts to develop on this.
- kurtis -