At 10:55 AM 2/11/2002 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
Having the "parent" be a group does not change the model or the problems
with it.
Your use of the word 'parental' could be misleading, because it imples
that the 'parents' are somehow superior to the person submitting the
proposal,
it means that there is control being imposed, with the claimed basis that
those imposing the control have superior ability to judge appropriateness.
In fact, I do believe that the judgement of the community is usually
superior to the judgement of individuals. Particularly when the subject
being discussed is a protocol for communication that is used by, and
affects, an extremely diverse set of interests.
There are problems with any model. I think there are fewer problems
with a model for extensions that requires community review,
The problems WITHOUT the control are theoretical and based on fear without
serious empirical foundation.
My opinions are based on experience and judgement. I assume your opinions
are based on your experience and judgement. Neither of us can cite 'serious
empirical foundation' for our positions.
The IETF's "own protocols" already cite the heck out of work from elsewhere.
Yes they do. But most protocols don't allow arbitrary extensions from
other parties. The review and the publication of those extensions
is generally expected to happen in IETF.
Keith
p.s. If people don't want their proposals reviewed by the community because
they are afraid that their ideas won't find favor, I have no sympathy with
them. But if people don't want to deal with personal attacks and baseless
accusations, frankly, I wouldn't blame them.
So if we want to streamline the process by which we can approve new
protocols or protocol extensions, in my opinion, the most effective
thing we could do is to curtail those personal attacks.