On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 10:18 AM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Alissa
Thanks for your reply.
Yeah, that discussion may have seen inconclusive, but it doesn't stop
the Board/LLC to state their view on the matter at some point.
Having a RFC to spell de guidelines may be something good for the future
and for several other situations, but without having it right now
doesn't stop the Board to adopt another tool and say: "We have discussed
the matter and we think that it is important for us to give the example
to all community even on these small things rather than use a tool we
have some preference and are used to". For the Board to do that it
doesn't require any RFC as it's a purely an administrative decision that
can be taken the same way it was taken when WebEx was chosen. Or Board
could also say: "We have discussed the matter and we believe this is
something unimportant in our view and we are not going to replace the
tools currently used"
If such actions are taken, and in the case Board's view matches mine and
others that could perhaps be an incentive to have a future document with
guidelines that would apply to other scenarios.
I would make two points here:
First, I think you are wrong on the merits. I do not believe that support for IPv6 (nor DNSSEC, nor TLS 1.3) should be a primary criterion for selecting tools. It may make us sad that these technologies are not being adopted at a faster rate but I don't think that inconveniencing ourselves in order to make a statement is the right answer.
Second, for the LLC board to take this kind of unilateral action on a matter which does not primarily impact the efficient operation of the IETF but rather is about messaging, seems like precisely the kind of overreach that people were worried the LLC would engage in. That kind of policy decision should come from the IETF, and as Alissa says, the position you are espousing does not seem to have gathered even rough consensus.
-Ekr
