At 12:32 PM 2/11/2002 -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
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 judgment of the community is usually
superior to the judgment of individuals.
1. You need to learn a little bit about tradeoffs between individual and
group decision making.
I've had quite a lot of opportunity to observe it for myself, thank you.
2. Extending your logic means that we take away all individuals
rights. Unless an action is approved by the majority -- and hence the term
"tyranny of the majority" -- then it is to be prohibited.
You and I both know that the IETF doesn't work that way. "rough consensus"
is different than majority rule, and there's usually considerable incentive
to work toward a consensus.
The problems WITHOUT the control are theoretical and based on fear without
serious empirical foundation.
My opinions are based on experience and judgment. I assume your opinions
are based on your experience and judgment. Neither of us can cite 'serious
empirical foundation' for our positions.
The detrimental effect of prohibiting easy coordination through open
registration is an essentially mathematical fact.
No it's not, because the applicability of any math that you'd cite
(if you actually cited any) to this case would still be open to question.
The dangers you cite, by contrast, are NOT based on actual experience,
contrary to your claims. Their only substance is fear.
I respectfully disagree. And your opinion of my experience or motivation
is of considerably less value than your opinion about protocol extension
mechanisms that is based on your own experience and judgment.
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.
Yes, I've noted this rather peculiar line of concern from you. It seems to
suggest that cooperation among consenting hosts is not to be permitted
unless it has IETF approval. Hence my term "parental".
Protocols are carefully constructed agreements about how to communicate.
The care that is taken in construction of those protocols reflects a
widely-held belief that proper functioning of the application requires
attention to a variety of concerns. The balance that is struck between
these concerns when the protocol is designed can easily be upset.
For this reason, the designers of a protocol quite often exercise as
much care in choosing an extension mechanism as they exercise in the
rest of that protocol design. Often the specified mechanism requires
that the proposed extension be reviewed by the community of experts
that defined the initial protocol.
p.s. If people don't want their proposals reviewed by the community because
they are afraid that their ideas won't find favor,
If registration requires citation of a specification, then community review
is inherent.
No it's not. Few people will bother reviewing a specification when it
is first introduced unless there is some chance that their review will
do some good. And without some requirement for review and response
to substantive comments prior to acceptance of a specification, few
submitters will bother to refine their specifications in light of such
review as does occur.
Keith