Hello Fernando, I do no have much too say, just that I agree with you 100%. I hope your email is received with the good intention I know you sent it. Alejandro, On 4/17/20 11:10 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote: > Hello all > > I want to call attention to a open wound. Some people may feel > uncomfortable about the content of this email but I can assure I come > with good intentions. > > Recently I got to know that a 6man meeting ironically was conducted > via Webex Videoconferencing tool which does not have IPv6 support. > Other tools used by IETF like GitHub also don't have and in this case > is even worst because there are several alternatives with IPv6 support > as GitLab, Bitbucket or even a self-hosted option. > > I want to talk about some points like value and productivity. > How can IETF that standardizes IPv6 can accept keep using any SaaS > products that don't yet have IPv6 support ? How is it not prepared to > eat its own dog food ? Even if the service is given for free it should > be refused as in my view IETF should always give the example worldwide > and say: "We thank your offer, but it is more important to us give the > example about our fundamental building blocks." > Some other questions that are worth put are: "Does it really have to > be *that* specific tool that doesn't have IPv6 support, or could we > live without this and that specific feature and at the end of the day > doing that same work we intended to ?" > > I feel sometimes people are too stick to certain tools that are not > prepared to let them go, even above values. Some may have a endless > to-do list and just want to get things out of their way without much > consideration to these points. Both in my view are bad. > > I do understand that sometimes it is difficult to find a proper tool > that will do the job, but unless we are talking about something rare > or unique and in that case *really* there is no other choice, I > believe more effort should to be put into using tools that support > IPv6. Perhaps even an in-house hosted solution should be considered. > They may not have all the features but may be able to do the job until > some SaaS can feel incentivized to get proper IPv6 support and > differentiate themselves. > If we were talking about a private company perhaps this could be more > loose, but we are talking about IETF. Values should always prevail and > give the example about IPv6 usage should always be among the list of > Priorities number 0. > > Over the years I see companies giving all sort of excuses about not > having IPv6 on their products. "This plugin"," that component that > doesn't have it", "Nobody asked for yet" (this is the worst), "My > provider which uses component XPTO has promised me that for next > year", etc. Very little are dispose to change suppliers to try get > things working and helping give the example. I even guess that > sometimes this may be a reliever to some people so they always have an > excuse on the pocket. Believe it or not but we are in 2020 and there > are new products coming out to production without proper IPv6 support, > including and mainly SaaS products. How come this can be considered a > normal thing at current times ? > > Sometimes I hear from people: "Well, it has passed 20 years and we > still have trouble with IPv6 deployments". Of course we do, people a > unwilling to change even small bits of their way of doing things, get > out of their comfort zones and start to require IPv6 as mandatory to > providers and SaaS services. > And even when IETF doesn't give the example how are we suppose to ask > people to do the right thing about it and for the survival of the > Internet for the next decades ? > > Shall we do the right thing and put values above other priorities > going forward ? > > Best regards > Fernando >
Attachment:
pEpkey.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
