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.

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.

Responsible stewardship of internet community standardization would be
excluding IPv6 strategic concerns from considerations of consensus on
IPv4 issues.

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.

I would even go so far as to say that you are actually poisoning the
process.

>
> 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.

Joe