Hello
I am not sure if you followed the whole discussion of if you have seen
only this message, but this has been already clarified that it's not
about Github specifically and that document. As mentioned there are
other cases, and other tools that do not go under the same process.
It's instead about IETF keep using any tools that have not done their
part in implementing IPv6 on it yet. It's about showing the example, not
just get the work done regardless. I know some people are more pragmatic
and just want to get work out of their way, but I personally believe
sticking to values in this situation is indeed important. What good is
it if IETF standardizes things if some people don't bother if they will
be adopted and followed or not ?
IETF not requiring SaaS solutions that it uses to support IPv6 is be the
same than AWS using Azure for running its internal stuff, Oracle using
Microsoft SQL Server as its Database or Microsoft hosting its corporate
emails on GSuite.
In the case of IPv6 is even more important because not only this has
been around for over 20 years but also the healthy growth of the whole
Internet ecosystem depends on it and we cannot dismiss the role IETF
plays with regards this subject.
Best regards
Fernando
On 21/04/2020 05:57, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Fernando,
At 08:10 PM 17-04-2020, Fernando Frediani wrote:
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.
Some of the points which you made were raised on other threads when
questions such as: "should the IETF use github?" were on-topic. A
person would have to figure out which points to raise to push matters,
such as the one which you commented about, forward. If that was easy
to do, lobbying efforts would result in the desired results.
Given that you wanted to call attention to the topic, I am curious
about why you did not comment during the Last Call(s).
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
