RE: [apnic-talk] "IPv8"
[Again, my POV]
> @And if you want it implemented, I would suggest that you post an internet
> @draft describing it, and demonstrate the existence of a
> marketplace that is
> @willing to pay for its implementation. Absent rubber-meets-road
> @specifications and marketing data, if I were you I wouldn't feel badly if
> @people didn't implement it. It is, after all, a free world, in
> which people
> @put their money where they see their needs and interests met.
> @
>
> We do not have to do that. The most important aspect of IPv8
> is the Address Management Plan. That is pretty well understood.
> The 43 bit IPv8 addresses fit nicely on the far right of the 128 bit
> IPv6 address fields. Therefore, IPv6 can be used as a transport
> for the interim.
So, while all other Internet protocols and BCPs (including IP registry
policies) are sent through the peer review process of the IETF, Jim's IPv8
does not. Hummm..
It's so simple to submit a IETF draft. Anyone on this list can submit
something. We even have April Fool's drafts that were accepted as
Informational RFCs that describe nonsense protocols (i.e. Internet April
Fools jokes).
Peer review is essential for good engineering. It's a core value of the IETF
process. All three IP registries also go through peer review internally
(members, BoDs, and advisors) and with each other. I still do not see why if
you feel IPv8 is the savior of the Internet that you refuse to document it
and publish it for peer review.
Barry
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *