From the dualstack-is-fun department...

[Andrew Yourtchenko]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Yourtchenko <ayourtch at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, we already have in the latest text:
>>
>> "Debugging and Troubleshooting
>>
>> This mechanism is aimed to help the user experience in case of connectivity
>> problems. However, this precise reason also makes it tougher to use these
>> applications as a means of the verification that the problems are fixed. To
>> assist in that regard, the applications implementing the proposal in this
>> document SHOULD also provide a mechanism to temporarily use only one
>> address family."
>>
>> Too weak ? Wrong approach ?
>>
>
> I don't there is anything that you could write in an IETF draft that
> would make joe-six-pack understand or care about HE.

The joe-six-pack who is supporting the IE6 corporate person ?

That paragraph is for the folks who write the code, not for the support/user.

The support guy will simply know "to support customers with IE6, flip that
green button into 'off' position before following the script".

>>
>> ...and "no-one changed anything". (That's what everyone says for the
>
> Most browsers i have update themselves, or windows update, or apt-get
> update them and i generally don't care to know what the updating is
> that happened... updates are good in my world.  In some larger
> corporate environments i know, IE6 is mandatory.

I suppose that given the IE6's security posture, they use it only on
the intranets.

>
>> past 15 or so years, I keep asking just in case, to see how often it's
>> "we changed X and Y has broken". I can count the occasions on fingers
>> of one hand, vs. the ~mid-4-digits number of the other outcome. So
>> fundamentally nothing changes - it breaks by itself today too :-)
>
> Yep.  And software updates are just like that.  They happen by
> themselves, literally.

As soon as they do not interrupt anything - that's fine.
And in the vast majority of the scenarios - they don't.
IE6, if anything, is an argument *for* the updates.

>
>>
>> (but seriously: appreciate all of the comments. I thought the above
>> blurb about troubleshooting in the draft should be enough, but maybe
>> it is not too strongly worded.
>
> When was the last time your read a warning label on a beer bottle?

I've just checked a couple of Belgian beers - there are no warnings on them.
Seems like it "just works" - even if the spec is so ill-defined there
are too many
competing implementations of Belgian Beer.

I think the beer example makes a case there's probably no One True Answer.

How about - "lookup in the DNS happyeyeballs-off.<host-domain-name> to
see if this algorithm needs to be turned off" ?

cheers,
andrew