Hi Fernando,
At 08:19 AM 21-04-2020, Fernando Frediani wrote:
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.
I read the thread.
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 ?
I took a quick look at an old statement of work for Meetecho. It
does not mention IPv4 or IPv6. I find it difficult to disagree with
the Meetecho team as I got good support from the team for free.
It is not about getting work out of the way or being pragmatic. I
would agree with your point about it not being worth publishing a BCP
if it will not be adopted. The point which you made is known as
"dogfooding". Here's a comment whcih I made about that topic:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6PxMGowo_74RuXNWxfZf-8lfdO8/
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.
In my opinion, telling people (outside the IETF) that IPv6 is
important is not a convincing argument. Showing them that the IETF,
for pragmatic reasons (I assume), cannot run its services on IPv6
might be a convincing argument.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
