[ppml] Proposed Policy: PI assignments for V6

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-12-15, at 02.50, Michel Py wrote:

>>> Michel Py wrote:
>>> Nevertheless, your WG still
>>> hasn't produced anything yet and it's been 10 years.
>
>> Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>> It's been 10 years for IPv6, and 4 years (or 3.5 of
>> whatever) for multi6.
>
> Kurtis,
>
> [I hope you do not take this personally as this is absolutely not the
> intent]

I am not. But I think you are bashing the IETF efforts for the sake of 
bashing the IETF efforts.

> The multi6 work _has indeed_ started some 10 years ago, as proof there
> are IETF IPv6 documents dating back to 1996 such as:
> http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-shand-ipv6-multi-homing-01.txt
> There also is some non-IETF work from even earlier (see below)

That multihoming for IPv6 was discussed even before we had IPv6, I will 
agree to. But for me the term multi6 refers explicitly to a WG in the 
IETF.


>> We do have a single proposal since D.C. It's not
>> a protocol yet, as that is left to another area.
>> It's not a WG document yet, as we are waiting for
>> people to submit the changes.
>
> Translation: another 4 years at best before initial publication, 
> another
> x years at best before initial tests.
>
> What? 4 years? YES, FOUR #%^$@ YEARS. Want proof? It's in the pudding,
> look below!

This is pure guess work. I think you will have publication faster than 
4 years.

>> IPv4 Multihoming Motivation, Practices and Limitations
>> draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming-02
>
> This has been on the since the original charter for ~4 years, still not
> published. I know it was already 2 years overdue when you inherited it
> but nevertheless it's a WG doc for the WG you co-chair. So please don't
> tell me my time lines are unrealistic.

A document will only move as fast as it's editors works on it. It was 
decided that I take over as editor, and the final version would have 
been posted next week, but I will be on vacation so look for this 
during the holidays. Besides, this document is documenting history and 
have nothing to do with a solution out of multi6.

> Kurtis, the following are facts: You don't even have a -00 as of today,
> a -00 has never been a solution anyway. Multi6 and previous works have
> not produced anything in the last 10 years, and will not produce
> anything before the next x+ years. _FACTS_.
>
> Asking for some extra years _more_ is not an option available to you
> anymore. Not after 10 years. IF you ever produce something, then we'll
> be eager to look at it when you ACTUALLY have it.

This is nonsense. I suspect you haven't been following the multi6 list 
or work being done. Will there be working implementations tomorrow? No. 
Will it take time? Yes. How long? Don't know. Noone does.

So Michel, either you can sit around, complain and be bitter - or you 
can take part in the discussions, and help shape the outcome. You have 
for quite some time chosen the first. I am sorry for that. I hope you 
don't take this personal, but I think your comments are not reflecting 
the true state of work in the multi6 WG. As for implementations, 
neither you or me knows the timeline.

- - kurtis - / Who is now going off-line for 10 days and won't be able to 
reply. 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQcE2waarNKXTPFCVEQIeTgCcDH/AH1EOGcU9eHN4VTzhA3s+go4AoKX1
/XpxexZbF/EPw3AYcdoHt1jo
=SB+0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----