> On Mar 30, 2022, at 09:16 , Joe Maimon <jmai...@jmaimon.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> What you’re really complaining about is that it’s been virtually impossible
>> to gain consensus to move anything IPv4 related forward in the IETF since at
>> least 2015.
>>
>> Well… It’s a consensus process. If your idea isn’t getting consensus, then
>> perhaps it’s simply that the group you are seeking consensus from doesn’t
>> like your idea.
>
> If the IETF has really been unable to achieve consensus on properly
> supporting the currently still dominant internet protocol, that is seriously
> problematic and a huge process failure.
Perhaps it’s more a question of the definition of “properly supporting” than
whether or not to do so.
> When vendors do that sort of thing people get up in arms. When open source
> projects do that sort of thing, they get forked. When community grassroots
> governance bodies do that sort of thing, I dont want to find out.
My best guess is that the closest example is BSD and it’s tragedy of CARP.
> Responsible stewardship of internet community standardization would be
> excluding IPv6 strategic concerns from considerations of consensus on IPv4
> issues.
We can agree to disagree about this. If enough people agree with you, perhaps
you can get consensus for that. If enough people agree with me, perhaps not.
> In other words, if the only issues you can bring to bear on any matter
> pertaining solely to IPv4 is all about IPv6, your not relevant to the process
> and should be struck from the record.
You are entitled to your opinion.
> I would even go so far as to say that you are actually poisoning the process.
Now you’re bordering on ad hominem.
>> Your inability to convince the members of the various working groups that
>> your idea has merit isn’t necessarily a defect in the IETF process… It might
>> simply be a lack of merit in your ideas.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
> This part is very good advice, perhaps restated as a lack of merit in the
> idea when combined with much wider and diverse perspectives.
>
> On the other hand, with no record and history of ideology driven agendas, the
> IETF process would be a whole lot more trustworthy.
There’s no such thing as a human process without ideology driven agendas, so
it’s hard to take such a comment seriously.
Owen
