On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:39 PM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Well, the other example besides videoconferencing that usually comes up here is Github, and yes, it would be quite a large inconvenience not to be able to use Github.
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.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.
But this is not just an administrative decision, because you are asking the LLC board to take into account factors which are not about the efficiency of the IETF. And for that reason I would expect the LLC to remain agnostic until instructed otherwise by the community.
