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

[Dave Crocker]

On 10/27/2017 5:08 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> 
> 
> 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,

It is nothing like that at all.  It is like the word "requirement" in a 
formal document meaning 'to require' and delegating the task of 
satisfying the requirement(s) to some folk with what is sometimes called 
a 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.

On this point of actual technical substance, we agree.


> 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".

Field teams often go astray of their mandate.  That doesn't make the 
mandate not 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.

"Inevitable" is such a dangerous word.  In this case, you've made a leap 
to its use that skips over so many complex human and social issues, it 
looks more like a statement of religion than engineering.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net