On 27/2/20 20:58, Robert Raszuk wrote:
[...]
We need to ask ourselves what is more important ... quality of data
plane for end users with 10s of ms of connectivity restoration times
upon failure or keeping original IPv6 dogmas in place where folks never
envisioned such needs or technologies to be invented.
I don't care myself about dogmas.
But there's an established process to do these things:
* You propose to change the existing behavior, and normally explain
what's that beneficial, and maybe you elaborate on why you are not
pursuing any possible alternatives.
* Once you gain consensus on the changes, you apply them.
And if the impact on the architecture is rather major, you probably
better have people give a careful though about it.
Now, what has been going on in Spring is a vendor or set of vendors
coming with a set of documents for a group to rubber-stamp, violating
existing specs at will, with interpretations of existing specs that are
confused beyond belief, or intentional to circumvent our existing processes.
Folks that care to "attract new people", etc., should really keep an eye
on these things, as to many this reads like: "When there's stuff at
stake, only big vendors get to play, with their own rules".
I'll refer to Jinmei's email, which esentially conveys the same message
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spring/hmmgQygE0qIhOrt4Ii_1ANDQgHM/>
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
