On 06/24/2011 09:08, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, 24 June, 2011 13:34 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
I think that's about right. There were several strong and very
raional opinions against this, including some who were not
involved in the similarly rough consensus in the WG
discussion. But (speaking as a co-author of one of the drafts
being historicised) I'd say the balance of opinion was to
publish. However, it's a close call.
Brian,
I see another problem here that, IMO, is complementary to the
issue that Paul raises and enough independent of that issue that
one could agree that the consensus determination was reasonable
but still wrong (I don't concede the first, but want to look at
the second).
I've never assumed that the LC process is a binary one, with the
only possible answers being "approve as written" or "complete
trash". It is a call for comments, not an approval vote. The
IESG clearly recognizes the distinction, although usually in
minor ways -- tuning of documents after IETF LC or IESG reviews
is almost certainly the norm rather than the exception and that
tuning is sometimes fairly significant.
In this case, it would not be hard to convince me that there was
pretty good IETF consensus that an unrestricted recommendation
for using 6to4 was appropriate. Even most of 6to4's strongest
advocates seem to agree that using it in stupid and naive ways
leads to bad outcomes. But consensus on that subject is not
consensus that moving the whole business to Historic is a good
idea.
I haven't seen those 2 ideas conflated anywhere, but it's not impossible
that I've missed something.
To paraphrase at least one comment, there is danger of
throwing the baby (and perhaps some of the plumbing fixtures)
away with the bath water.
What I saw was what appeared to me to be some fairly strong
arguments for looking at the problem in a different way -- a way
that I've seen no evidence the WG considered at all. That
would be to explore alternatives to the rather blunt instrument
of making a protocol specification historic: explaining what
needs to be done to get it right (your document does a lot of
that) and then figuring out ways to warn against the uses and
configurations that we all (or mostly) agree are bad news.
By "your document" above are you referring to Brian's
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory ? If so I
would argue that the extensive WG discussion about both documents meets
your criteria. Taken together the 2 documents represent a series of
compromises between those of us whose opinion is "Kill 6to4 dead,
yesterday" and those who would like to give it as graceful an exit as
possible. The "historic" document points out the reasons that doing it
at all is probably a bad idea, and asks that it be off by default; while
the "advisory" document tells people that want to to do it anyway how to
do it right. Personally I was very satisfied with both products of the
WG and taken as a whole I think they describe a very rational approach.
I would also encourage anyone who has strong opinions about the topic to
read the WG archives for discussion of both drafts. It was wide-ranging
and, I believe, thorough. I briefly considered summarizing the high
points in this message, but my fear is that it would simply re-open
debate on topics already covered more adequately in the WG archives.
hth,
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf