This was discussed in the working group.
For folks who did not participate in the working group, the right time
to raise this was during the IETF LC. Which did occur. And was
publicized the same way all IETF decisions are publicized.
The IESG leadership concluded (as far as I could tell correctly) that
there was IETF rough consensus for the two documents from the working group.
Those documents are now on the RFC Editor queue.
Yes, some people disagree. That happens. That is why we have a rough
consensus process.
I do not think it is or should be incumbent on the participants to
rehash the issues because the issue has been re-raised.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/19/2020 12:19 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
Hello Carsten
Thanks for your input.
Don't you think that not choosing the default choice is just a question
of adaptation ? The additional learning is expected and a normal thing I
would say.
I guess that putting the fact IPv6 has not been enabled to a particular
SaaS as something small should not be the case, not for IETF. Perhaps
for a private company it could be the case, but IETF should stand to
values and also have focus on giving the example, otherwise why put all
the effort in standardize something ?
Has anyone done any type of assessment of how much would possible be
lost by directing people to use other tools versus how much is lost over
the years by people and companies looking that not even IETF is
concerned about favoring products with IPv6 ?
Otherwise we will spend another 20 years asking people to adopt IPv6 and
having to deal with the growing issues related to legacy IPv4.
Best regards
Fernando
On 19/04/2020 13:03, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On 2020-04-19, at 17:53, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can we start with: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/git/about/ ? What
type of unique thing GitHub has that justifies continuing using it in
detriment to other SaaS that already have full IPv6 support ?
Github has an audience that nobody else has.
If the objective of the github repo is to open communication lines to
actual developers; these are overwhelmingly on github; using another
service just misses the mark.
For other projects, gitlab etc. work well, too, but do require some
additional learning for people who work on more than one project at
the time. There is no institutional bias against those services; I
have participated in IETF-related projects both on gitlab and on
bitbucket (even with, shudder, mercurial). It’s just not the default
choice.
Note that we are not talking about a company that routinely engages in
criminal behavior (you know who I’m talking about; do not discuss this
here as it is off-topic), but a service that merely hasn’t got around
to enabling IPv6. This is ugly, but not the original sin.
Grüße, Carsten
