Fine Joel.
We are not exactly discussing IESG decision on that document, just
quoted it as an example of something that should be avoided (the usage
of SaaS that do not support IPv6 by IETF officially).
This applies to other cases that do not necessary have a similar
document that reached consensus or not.
Therefore the discussion on whether it's worth to concern about it in
general when it comes to the tools used by IETF or not can continue and
we can gather people's view on that.
Regards
Fernando
On 19/04/2020 13:38, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
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
