On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > <snip> >> I think that an endorsement like "I work for Cisco and we intend to implement this in every one of our products" is useful. But it's not nearly as useful as "this is a terrible idea, and doing this will prevent IPv6 from ever gaining traction". The objections raised in last call are really the point, not the endorsements. > > > Think I've read somewhere that the ground of good engineering (the E > in IETF) are being able to argue against your own idea, search and > look for flaws in it, and all in the name of testing it to see how it > can be made even better, is it good enough? Or simple to consider the > bigger picture, can my idea hurt the rest no matter how good it is? > There are great and very good ideas out there that isolated are > fantastic, but considered in just a bit bigger picture are horrible, > they've ruin everything around them. I agree. IPv4 forever using CGNs may work for a lot of people and a lot of uses. If people remain double- or triple-natted it won't matter a bit to the big web sites. It's far more important to hear what is not going to work with this solution. It's great if you can find such deficiencies in your own ideas, but we still need design reviews, code reviews, QA departments and IETF last calls so that others can get at your idea. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf