[ih] fragmentation (Re: Could it have been different? [was Re: vm vs. memory])

[Paul Vixie]

Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 10/26/2017 3:36 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> The original mandate was for more address space. All the other
>>> 'features' that were attempted went beyond that mandate.
>>
>> that word, "mandate," i don't think it means what you think it means.
>
> Of course I do, and it's purely luck that Craig made the point for me:
> cf, RFC 1726. That was not produced quickly nor in isolation nor by only
> a tiny collection of wayward folk. It creates a mandate to work on a
> particular problem to a particular goal.

ok, thanks for explaining. this is like the mandate every winner of 
every political race claims, for the policies that got them elected. 
like "the reagan mandate" of 1980, an election in which fewer than half 
of eligible voters actually voted. that is to say, a fake news mandate.

had the ietf actually adhered to the limits of RFC 1726, we would not 
have a radically different fragmentation model in ipv6 compared to ipv4. 
so i think we can tell that not only the actual "internet engineers" of 
the world, but also their chosen vehicle, were in no way constrained by 
the thing you are calling a "mandate".

> My point is that this was expanded over time.

my point is that such expansion was inevitable and should have been 
expected and the people who ratified the mandate ought to have known better.

-- 
P Vixie