Re: V6 still not supported

[John Curran <jcurran () istaff org>]

> On 22 Mar 2022, at 4:08 AM, Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote:
>
> >  - There was an open call for proposals.
> >  - We had many submissions: Nimrod, PIP, SIP, TUBA, IPAE, CATNIP (TP/IX), ...
> >  - SIP absorbed IPAE, and then PIP merged with SIP to form SIPP
> >  - Three final proposals CATNIP, TUBA, SIPP
> >  - Chicago Big-10 workshop did final review and recommended SIPP, only using
> >    128-bit "NSAP-like" addresses
>
> and such steps were controlled by IAB, that is, you merely
> support my point that:
>
> > co make IPv6 something a lot worse than
> > CLNP and XNS.

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.  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.   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.  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/> 
  
> 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 whereby features from multiple contributors were 
included, but such was driven (much like the “extra cruft” I referenced in an earlier message) out of the earnest 
belief of technical merit of the unproven features rather than politics.  Of course, the problem with including new & 
unproven features is that they as often as not turn out to be either technically flawed or provide no functionality 
actually desired from the customer (and IPv6 certainly had examples of both) 

Best wishes,
/John

John Curran
IPng Directorate Member, 1993 - 1996