The reason you know of few people in the IETF who would make that claim is that (1) the IETF is actually pretty backwards about trying new things, for reasons about which I could speculate, but I'm sure that would be a bad idea. And (2) IETFers actually use a lot of stuff that regular users never use, so we are more likely to run into breakage, e.g. Stephen's edge case. We are good people to use for testing edge cases. And I think most of us are fine with testing edge cases. So I think that "we" is actually a lot of IETF participants; however, those IETF participants tend to avoid the IETF mailing list because discussions like this always devolve into politics.
The IETF is in the business of designing new networking protocols. If we are so allergic to dogfood that we can't even tolerate it for a week at a time three times a year, when there is an easy way to opt out, I think we ought to just stop spending millions of tons of carbon every year flying to these stupid meetings and go grow turnips or something.
On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 29 Jul 2017, at 7:01, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jul 29, 2017, at 8:53 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Of course this is true, but it's equally true that the people who want to use v6 only can use a separate network. It's not clear why those of us who just want to get work done need to be inconvenienced in service of a political point.
It's not a political point, Eric.
The point is that we claim that we have produced something that will Just Work for the average user.
Who is this "we" you are speaking of? I know few people in the IETF who make that claim that about v6-only networks, and even fewer who do it with a straight face.
If you really think you can't "get work done" on an IPv6-only network with working and functional transition tech, we have a problem.
Again, that "we". The people who claim that v6-only networks are ready by default have a problem, not the IETF as a whole.
--Paul Hoffman