Michael Thomas wrote:
Your argument appears to be that people who implement Internet-Drafts
should have sway over the ability to change those drafts.
Hold sway != have a say. I think that people who have some
skin in the game should be considered carefully. What I read
here is dismissal (= "hold sway").
...
Dave. My irritation here is that it doesn't seem to even be on anybody's
radar that you are breaking implementations utterly and completely.
Doing that is devaluing running code which last time I checked counts
for something. I'd really like to deploy something for the reflector,
but this silly last minute name changing makes that all pointless.
You originally posited dire consequences that changing a name broke a service.
I pointed that there is no service, from the standpoint of the IETF. That some
folk are pursuing proprietary activities is entirely fine. That they base
those
proprietary efforts on unstable public documents is also fine. What is not
fine
is the view that their private efforts should have any meaningful effect on
group consensus to make improvements in the drafts.
Basically, I believe you are confusing the benefit of getting data from
prototypes, versus the more extensive damage done by changing an installed
global service.
That said, of course, group consensus is group consensus. Demonstrate that
there is group consensus about the real damage done by the current effort to
change the name and, well, group consensus rules...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html