On 10/10/10 4:02 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > On 10/10/2010 3:44 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: >> Mebbe. I confess I didn't study the details of the competing >> proposals at >> the time because I was confident the people who were heavily involved >> surely >> had things under control. > > > Alas... > > Along with the imposition of ASN.1's complexities as the MIB format, for > "compatibility" between the competing network management protocols (SNMP > and CMOT), IPv6 was an early demonstration of the problems that accrue > from treating technical design as a political process, trying to > accommodate too many factions. > > Such accommodations seem to rarely provide the long-term benefit that is > intended, but instead consistently add complexity and limitations. > > Politicized technical processes rarely allow good folk to adequately > "have things in control".
The difference with ipv4 address length being mainly that at the end of the day the darpa program manager could say, "stop your bickering we're doing it this way." I'm reminded of Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." while that's not our process, I think it's a bit presumptuous to suppose that some other organizational construct might produce a different, and presumed better result. By the time this thread is done perhaps the axes will have been ground down to nubs. > (I'm sure that your experiences on the ICANN > Board and its SSAC have not disclosed this unexpected fact of life to > you yet, so I thought it worth pointing out.) > > d/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
