On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 04/10/2017 03:13, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
...> It really is quite simple in my view. If you want IPv6 to become
> unbiquitous, you need to provide people with a new internet API that
> isolates the application from ALL of the IPv4/IPv6/NAT issues. And thanks
> to Stuart Cheshire and co, 90% of the work is already done.
I'm not being in the least sarcastic when I say that the other 10% of
the work will take 90% of the time. For more, see my rant in CCR:
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/CCR-201404- IPaddrHarmful.pdf
Make that 'decisions are already taken'.
Given that to be viable a scheme has to work with the Apple, Google and Microsoft platforms and given that further there are precisely zero other platforms whose support is essential, it follows that any decision that attempts to rewrite the existing facts on the ground as agreed with at least one of the parties without good reason is due to fail.
90% of the problem is bike shedding anyway. The fact that there is a bike shed already built and painted means that as far as I am concerned, folk need to have a very good reason to change the colour.
But that isn't how these discussions go. On numerous occasions, I have experienced conversations of the form:
Me: I propose we do A because of reasons X, Y and Z.
Other: I disagree, I don't care about reasons X, Y or Z and as far as I am concerned, B is just as good and since I don't care we are going to do it my way.
And no, I am absolutely not exaggerating. When someone wants to insist on a particular outcome but does not want to justify it, agenda denial, ruling the requirements out of scope is the most effective strategy.