On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
We'll have to agree to differ, I suppose.
The point is that we claim that we have produced something that will Just Work for the average user. 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.So one of two things is true: you are right that such a network would not allow IETF attendees to "get work done," or you are wrong. It would be good to know which of these is actually true. This is the point of making it the default: so that you have to opt out rather than opting in. That way we can see how many people opt out, and maybe get some feedback as to why.
In other words, you want to opt everyone into doing your testing for you. Again, that's not the purpose of the IETF network.
Honestly, it's really frustrating to me how prevalent this idea is that getting things to work is someone else's problem. You're the last person I would have expected to make this case. Do you think that we should still be running TLS 1.1, and that trying to use TLS 1.3 when it becomes available would be a "political" choice? That's essentially what you are arguing here, just in a different part of the stack.
No, it's not. The right analogy would be filtering out TLS 1.3 at our network edge, which you absolutely do not see me suggesting.
-Ekr