[arch-d] Is IPv6 End-to-End? R.I.P. Architecture? (Fwd: Errata #5933 for RFC8200)

[Guntur Wiseno Putra <gsenopu@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Andrew &

architecture-discuss,

I struggled to read yours, Andrew, and others mentioned in this message.

What are about the 4 criteria (assets, incentives, costs and benefits) mentioned by Pikander...? 

He mentioned about "vision" following the criteria:

" We need some kind of an architectural vision and a related transition path; an idea of where we are heading and perhaps how we could get there.

...". 

"Vision is a coincidence between what are Pikander's on the Internet Architecture (especially about protocols and changes) and what is Heidegger's on art, technology and humanity:

He ... (Heidegger)... believes this because, as he explains in his earlier text “The Origin of the Work of Art,” art is nothing other than the revelation of the way we use things—and, if one wants, of the way we are used by things.2 Here it is important to note that for Heidegger, the artwork is not a thing but a vision that opens to the artist in the clearing of Being.

More generally, the "vision" to elaborate concerns with developing the Internet technology research and standards: L. Daigle (2009) said 

"(In developing the Internet technology based on innivation and interoprability:) In that model of development, there are three key types of activity from which feedback needs to be fostered: (1) development of technical specifications, (2) deployment, and (3) answering open questions (research). The IETF focuses primarily on the first activity, but it has a close relationship with the third in the shape of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF). The IETF process itself is deliberately open to and seeking feedback from the second activity: deployment experiences".

https://www.ietfjournal.org/developing-internet-technology-research-and-standards/

More recently about the "vision" to elaborate is section 4. How We See the Internet of 2019 ISOC GlobalbReport "Consolidation in the Internet Economy"

https://future.internetsociety.org/2019/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/04/InternetSociety-GlobalInternetReport-ConsolidationintheInternetEconomy.pdf

Regard,

Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Minggu, 01 Maret 2020, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom..com> menulis:

Guntur,

 

I have to say – I sat and thought about what you wrote here – and there was one line tha really struck in in the context of this whole debate

 

<snip>

> Any change requires a reason to overcome the associated hurdle. Consequently, I have found it very instructive to try to think about the network and protocols in terms of assets, incentives, costs, and benefits".

On this – we are in total agreement – which is why when I look at what has occurred in SPRING – I find myself getting very depressed.

 

In order to consider protocols and change in the context of the four criteria you listed – we would need certain information –

 

1. Why do the authors of the disputed draft insist on holding with PSP – what is the substantive use case – I for one – do not believe this has been close to addressed in light of the fact that there were no less than 4 ways to progress the contentious draft (compromises were offered, everything from, progress the draft with this moved to another document that could be debated, to update the rfc8200) – in every case – the authors refused to budge
2. In order to evaluate benefit you need people who are prepared to state the benefit they see in something – instead we have a document advancing based not on consensus but on (and I quote) “We had to move this forward” and citing a bunch of people who +1’ed a list in what was in my view a clearly orchestrated +1 campaign as justification for support.  I’ll be releasing a rather interesting summary from the lists showing just how many times the majority of those people have *ever* posted to the lists before – it makes for an interesting read.
3. With regards to the costs – without knowing what the real reason for insisting on holding to this – and there must be done considering the dogged way the authors and the vendor behind this document have insisted on it – without giving proper reasons – this cannot be evaluated.

 

So – on the basis of the criteria you listed alone – the fact that we are seeing something being railed through a working group – despite substantive – numerous – and unaddressed objections in total violation of the very concept of consensus – disturbs me greatly.  I have always believed that if things like appeals can be avoided – that is always first prize – sadly in this case – we are now forced into an appeal process and we will see how it plays out – but – in light of all this – I can understand why people on so many lists are questioning what is going on.

 

Thanks

 

Andrew