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]

 



The problem is that the IETF, and the IESG in particular, sees a protocol,
sees it is planned to be used with internet related protocols, and so
perhaps on some part of the internet, and decides "that's ours, we must
be the ones to decide whether that is any good or not, now how do we force
that to happen?"

That's intolerable.

No, that's their job. Or at least, close to their job. IP is IETF's protocol. IETF is where the vast majority of expertise in IP resides. An IP extension developed entirely outside of IETF has a very high probability of causing problems for the Internet. It's naive to have this idea that says "anybody ought to be able to extend IP however they want, and we'll let the market sort things out." It doesn't work, any more than the market works to prevent the spread of a virulent disease.

Keith

_______________________________________________

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]