Stewart,
On 20-Apr-20 04:30, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> I would prefer that in our day to day work we placed technical pragmatism before technology religion.
I completely agree, but our definitions of "religion" might vary. The argument for preferring IPv6-capable tools is not, I think, religious. IPv6 doesn't have magical properties. It's simply a better protocol than IPv4, without limits to growth and without the need for NAT. The argument for the IETF preferring IPv6-capable tools is partly that it's better, and partly that it is to the benefit of IPv6 deployment that the IETF is seen to be using it. No religion there, but I am talking about a *preference*, not a dogmatic rule.
> The design job we do is hard enough without a forced move to other than best in class tools.
It's reasonably clear to me that in practice, GitHub is "best" but purely due to preferential attachment (i.e. success breeds success). I certainly wouldn't suggest that it's technically best, and many aspects of its user interface are plain horrible.
As for Webex, I much prefer both Meetecho and Zoom, but the question of "best in class" seems to be wide open.
> We should pick the best tools based on their ability to perform the service we require of them, and not whether they are accessible using IPv6
I think IPv6 access should be one of the major criteria in choosing tools, but I agree that it should not be determinant.
I also think that the IETF leadership could and should use its reputation to press the companies involved to provide IPv6 support.
Incidentally, there is a reason why the IETF chose the dual stack co-existence model for IPv6 - precisely to mitigate this whole set of problems.
Brian
