On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
On Jul 10, 2011, at 11:57 PM, William Herrin wrote:
A more optimal answer would have been to make AAAA records more like MX or SRV records -- with explicit priorities the clients are encouraged to follow. I wasn't there but I'd be willing to bet there was a lonely voice in the room saying, hey, this should be controlled by the sysadmin. A lonely voice that got shouted down.
Give me a break... multiple implementations have chosen to tweak the algorithm independently and at various times.
It's just an rfc, not the gospel according to richard draves.
" Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the contributions of the IPng Working Group, particularly Marc Blanchet, Brian Carpenter, Matt Crawford, Alain Durand, Steve Deering, Robert Elz, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino, Tony Hain, M.T. Hollinger, JINMEI Tatuya, Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark, Ken Powell, Markku Savela, Pekka Savola, Hesham Soliman, Dave Thaler, Mauro Tortonesi, Ole Troan, and Stig Venaas. In addition, the anonymous IESG reviewers had many great comments and suggestions for clarification. "
Joel, I am giving you a break. Instead of calling this list of folks to the carpet over a failure of imagination that by the time we've ubiquitously deployed IPv6 will have been the root cause of billions if not tens of billions of dollars in needless industry expense, I'm trying to move the discussion past the errors and focus on ways to help the next team of smart, selfless and dedicated individuals avoid sullying their results with a similar mistake. Denial keeps the discussion focused on the errors. You don't want that and neither do I.
Today's RFC candidates are required to call out IANA considerations and security considerations in special sections. They do so because each of these areas has landmines that the majority of working groups are ill equipped to consider on their own.
There should be an operations callout as well -- a section where proposed operations defaults (as well as statics for which a solid case can be made for an operations tunable) are extracted from the thick of it and offered for operator scrutiny prior to publication of the RFC.
Do you find this adjustment objectionable? Do you have other fresh ideas to float? Something better than the tired refrain about operators not showing up? 'Cause I have to tell you: Several years ago I picked a working group and I showed up. And I faced and lost the argument against the persistent certainty on the workability of ridiculous deployment scenarios by folks who never managed any system larger than a software development lab. And I stopped participating in the group about a year ago as the core of participants who hadn't given up wandered off into la la land. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004