Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





--On Tuesday, June 28, 2005 09:48 -0700 Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Keith,

At 05:40 AM 06/28/2005, Keith Moore wrote:
My personal opinion is that it's quite reasonable to require
IESG approval  of an IP-level option.  IMHO the IESG should
solicit public input before  making such a decision, probably
in the form of a Last Call.  But the  potential for harm is
such that somebody needs to have the ability to say  "no".
Or to put it another way, IMHO we need both convincing
evidence of  technical soundness, ideally supported by
analysis, and a compelling  argument of benefit for the
Internet community, to justify adding a new  option to the IP
layer.  We already have too much variation in the  operating
environment from one network to another.

Well said.

I would be troubled by any change to IP (including new
options) that was not discussed in the IETF, documented in an
RFC, and have declared IPR.  In the hour glass model of the IP
architecture these are changes that go in the skinny waist.  A
place in the architecture where we want to be conservative
adding new things (as opposed to higher up where we clearly
want lots of diversity and liberal assignment policies).

Sigh. I'm going to try one last time. Probably I should just give up.

Bob and Keith,

As far as protocol changes, adding stuff to IP, etc., I am 100% in agreement with you. We should be cautious, we should exercise considerable diligence, we should not approve anything without considerable evidence of informed IETF consensus. I can't figure out how to say that more clearly.

_However_ if some rogue group comes along (and I hope that we are a long distance from where Larry Roberts would be considered a "rogue group", even though I have disagreed about some things he has advocated in the past and may do so in the future) and has the resources and commitment to deploy an IP option, I think we need to register it to protect the community from the bad option, not pretend that not registering it will somehow prevent them from deploying their ideas.

And then, if we are convinced the idea is bad enough, we need to do what _will_ prevent the bad idea from being actively used, which is to do, and write up the analysis of why it is bad and what problems it will cause.

But the notion that the IETF can prevent something from happening or being deployed by declining to register it, or by turning our collective backs on it without any real explanation -- even at the waist of the hourglass-- is, in this world, just delusional. And, if that delusion prevents the IETF community from explaining, carefully and in public why the idea is a bad one, then it is we who are putting the Internet at risk.

  john






_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]