No disagreement on any of this. I was just responding to what
I took to be suggestions that in-flight partial evaluation was
inappropriate.
john
--On Saturday, 18 December, 2004 04:23 -0500 Scott W Brim
<swb(_at_)employees(_dot_)org> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 11:47:10AM -0500, John C Klensin
allegedly wrote:
Harald, while I agree in principle, I would suggest that some
of the comments Eric, Bill, and others have pointed out call
for the beginnings of an evaluation of your experiment. I
further suggest that evaluation is appropriate at almost any
time, once data start to come in.
I hope it can be a relatively sloppy process. Let's not
insist on perfection. An RFC is identified as possibly
outdated, the suggestion is posted, and people respond -- just
as is happening now. Sometimes the suggestions are wrong.
The experiment is going fine as long as you realize it's an
experiment in process as much as discovering how much cleaning
is possible.
My recent response to Pekka's analysis
of the CIDR documents is one suggestion about where such an
evaluation might lead. And, of course, this whole firestorm
of discussion on the IETF list, while a welcome distraction
from hairsplitting debates about administrative structures,
adds strength to the position of those who argued in newtrk
that this effort might not be worth the
amount of community energy it would take up.
Yup. The jury is still out on whether it's worthwhile. Let's
be forgiving of the first attempt, and let it run for a little
longer and see if it becomes more polished.
Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf