-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Dec 20, 2007, at 4:59 AM, Theodore Tso wrote:
I think the IETF oldie perspective is ... amazement
Truer words were never spoken, at least from this oldie's perspective. I found Dave Crocker's comment that the IETF never does interoperability testing equally amazing. The IETF has never offered the room (that is something a host does), but to describe the semi- annual PPP-fests that occurred throughout the 1990's, the OSPF testing that resulted in RFC 1246, and all the interoperability testing that has been done since, as unrelated to IETF activity is ... interesting. Here, I thought we were all IETF participants testing IETF specifications and products based on them, providing test results as called for in RFC 2026 and working group document feedback, and in the end demonstrating the "running code" part of the IETF mantra.
In the next year, let's try to do whatever ENGINEERING work is necessary so that the IETF conference network can offer IPv6-only services to all of its laptop clients, and that this be sufficient for people to get real work done.
Actually, with the exception of the root zone record, I think this has been true of the laptops brought to meetings for some time. Anyone running a Mac has had IPv6 support and IPv6-capable applications for some time. Ditto Linux, and it was possible to make Windows XP use it. Microsoft Vista makes that on-by-default, making this more the case as people upgrade to it. IETF meeting networks have supported IPv6 for several years, and IIRC have provided ISP support as well.
Now, do you recall Randy Bush sitting in the IESG plenary and calling out passwords? Advising people to get some variation on a VPN running? For me, the big issue is that I do my work within a corporate context, and therefore need to access corporate accounts to do what I do. Cisco IT has a plan to deploy IPv6, but has not yet done so internally for a reason that will, I think, ring true for many - IPv6 doesn't solve a business problem that Cisco IT has (it has plenty of addresses for the present and has few if any IPv6-only business partners that would force the issue), and hence it hasn't seen fit to bring up IPv6 throughout Cisco.
For me, making me able to "do real work" will involve a whole lot more than making the room work. I think the experiment is a good one, and if it gets the root zone record updated it has IMHO already had a good effect. But I personally need for more to happen to be able to effectively use it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFHaqR3bjEdbHIsm0MRAqBKAJ9+04ilgwt9JBm+og4kJRFBpowmfwCfT4bc 0atUFKRxGziKZepDfQAKxRQ= =G9z1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf