![(please configure the [header_logo] section in trac.ini)](https://www.ietf.org/images/ietflogotrans.gif)
Opened 6 years ago
Last modified 6 years ago
#385 new defect
S. Moonesamy feedback on draft-iab-protocol-transitions-05
| Reported by: | dthaler@… | Owned by: | draft-iab-protocol-transitions@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | milestone1 |
| Component: | /home/ietf/id/draft-iab-protocol-transitions-03.txt | Version: | |
| Severity: | In WG Last Call | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
In the field of software, the developers sometimes drop support for an old version of a protocol [1]. From a SSO perspective, the IETF is said to have an open maintenance process for its standards. Does that maintenance process apply to the obsolete version of the protocol? Does that maintenance process only apply to bug fixing or does it also comprise adding new features to the obsolete protocol?
An observation about Bitcoin is included in Section 1 of the draft. Bitcoin is not an IETF technical specification or protocol. Bitcoin was described as "a peer-to-peer electronic cash system" [2]. The closest analogy, based on the arguments of an ITAT paper, is IPv6 as it comes with a built-in payment system. The Early-Adopters incentive(s) did not work for IPv6. How could the IETF provide a long-term advantage in its protocols?
Did having the policy-making organizations mentioned by example in the draft make a significant difference [3] in turning the IPv6 transition into an example of a successful protocol transition?
Is the IAB responsible for planning for transition for an IETF protocol?
Regards,
- Moonesamy
- https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=807107
- https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
- I am not sure about the meaning of "enabled" or "facilitated".
Updated "Communicating the Plan" section with more details about ISOC's role in World IPv6 Launch's success.
Ted responded to the last question:
The charter of the IAB puts long-range planning in the IAB's set of responsibilities when that is done as part of its architectural oversight (see section 2.1 of RFC 2850). In practice that means that some transitions are completely outside of the IAB's remit, some the IAB contributes to (by reviewing charters for proposed work, proposing workshops on the relevant space, etc.), and some it advocates (the transition to default-confidential operation for the Internet being the most recent). Once the community accepts the advocacy, though, the work goes on in the IETF.