This is a non-technical side note about the Spirit and Letter of the Law
in IPv6 WG.
In these discussions about IPv6 like routing header, insertion,
mutability, 64bit, limited domains, multihoming, smart end dumb network,
and numerous other 'tussles', one is supposed to take a side among one
of those two:
- maintain rock solid principles, continue the tradition, keep it up
working as it was designed to and that demonstrated its validity on very
large scale.
- break away from tradition, foster innovation, things will work anyways
because humans engineer them and market regulates them.
Only deep convictions about one of those two sides can make IPv6
deployment and development progress.
On my side, I cant make have such deep convictions.
Alex
Le 05/09/2019 à 23:58, Ole Troan a écrit :
Fernando,
On 5 Sep 2019, at 21:54, Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> wrote:
On 5/9/19 22:30, Ole Troan wrote:
On 5 Sep 2019, at 21:03, Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> wrote:
We have wasted way too much time and energy with all the methafores and
curious interpretations of standards by folks pushing and/or supporting
EH insertion, really.
Pot calling kettle black?
Not really.
Since this whole EH-insertion debate started, it has all been about
pushing it forward no matter what.
The spec is clear. If you want to change it, make a strong case for it.
BUt do not try to circumvent the IETF consensus on the topic.
Straw man attack.
I think you have repeatedly made your point.
O.
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
