On 08/05/2020 14:51, Eric Rescorla
wrote:
Perhaps one of the reasons they are not being sufficiently adopted because of the lack examples of people and organizations using them and the main propose is that as much as possible organizations start to do that in the many ways possible, and IETF is an natural one. Really do you see such an inconvenience on that ?<clip>
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.
When you say "unilateral" action I see as something natural. I don't think the community has to tell very detailed how the Board conduct every step of their business, that's why I am askinf for their consideration for this matter. They should have a fair amount of freedoom to decide smaller things like this which as I said are just administrative decisions. If there was a guiding document telling them how to do on this matter specifically fine, but there isn't and that doesn't stop them to make some adjustments, should they have the same view about the example it gives to other people and organizations and *specially to products that get more aware they can start to be rejected for not having support for the current Internet Protocol*
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.
Rich - answering your question here it is not about that their view matters more of less of anyone else. It's just about being practical that *this* type of adjustment can be taken by themselves without need of any document with guidelines as it was already done for the tool currently used. If in the future community reach consensus on how this should be done, not just for the Board but for other scenarios, then all will adjust for that.
Regards
Fernando
