John Curran wrote:
The characterization that the IAB somehow struck back with the IPng decision implies a level of direction over the decision which simply did not exist.
I understand that that is your theory.
That’s not to say that there wasn’t "IETF politics" involved, but rather that such politics were expressed as enormous pressure to "make a decision" rather than IAB/IESG shaping of the various protocol proposals and their technical evolution.
So, your theory is that because IAB/IESG must make decisions, they can make decisions to make IPng a lot worse than IPv4.
The technical teams that submitted each proposal controlled that proposal's evolution, and the IPng Directorate (not the IAB or IESG) made the final IPng protocol selection/recommendation.
Before they were disturbed by IAB, sure. But, as you pointed out, they are politically disturbed to make their proposals merge.
You can confirm all of this rather easily, as the entire set of IPng materials and decisions are here at Scott Bradner’s archive - https://www.sobco.com/ipng/ <https://www.sobco.com/ipng/>
Surely, I can confirm that you actually support my points.
It should also be noted that merger is just political ceremony to pretend IPng were resulted from cooperation of many contributors only to make it bloat by incorporating all the features without technical merits.
Half correct; the final protocol was indeed the result of compromise
That is a lot more than enough, not just half lot.
out of the earnest belief of technical merit of the unproven
No. It is out of the earnest belief of political merit by some committee.
Of course, the problem with including new & unproven features
Wrong. A problem, among many, of IPv6 is that it is bloat to have included a lot of old and proven to be useless/harmful features. Masataka Ohta