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]

 



Just a quick (one-time I plan) note in support of John's position. I, too, think it is counterproductive to avoid/deny registration in this case. Maybe a slightly different way of saying it:

- A group of folks has designed an IP _option_ they intend to use
- They have documented the option (albeit not in IETF format)
- They are asking, in fact, "We are going to deploy this option, what code point would you like us to use?"

The IETF/IESG have two choices IMHO:

A. Assign a code point. If someone later says "hey, that option doesn't play well on my part of the network", you know _exactly_ what code point to filter (drop packets) on. In a good community spirit one might also write this up as an "option XYZ considered harmful" ID.

B. Deny the assignment of the code point, and forever wonder which unknown code in an inbound packet might correspond to this option.

I suggest choice A. above is the better one of the two.

Also note that "C. Prevent the deployment of the option" does not exist.

On Jun 28, 2005, at 16:32, John C Klensin wrote:

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.

Hans Kruse, Associate Professor
J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management
Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
292 Lindley Hall, Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701
740-593-4891 voice, 740-593-4889 fax

_______________________________________________

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]