From: ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com
[mailto:ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com]
I feel that the charter as orignally proposed on September 23rd was a
good charter and should be allowed to proceed.
IMO it left far too many aspects of the approach to be taken
unspecified, so much so that it cannot be used in an
exclusionary way to arrive at some form of consensus.
It is an adequate charter to define the technical scope of the project.
True but beside the point. Sufficient coverage of the problem space is not the
issue. Rather, the issue is that the charter covers many things that need to be
exlcuded if we intend to make progress.
At a minimum the charter needs to exclude previous signature schemes used in
the traditional ways.
The obvious way to accomplish this is to tighten up the charter. But the
discussion on the list has led me to believe that we won't get agreement on a
tighter charter.
But as John suggests, another way to do it is to limit things to a choice
between a specific set of proposals. Of course as you say, we don't have
those yet...
I agree that there are technical details to be determined as to the
embodiment of the project that could result in differing proposals.
Technical details aren't the issue.
Now, in those rare cases where it is clear that there's an
identifiable central issue of approach that cannot resolved,
the IETF has on occasion chartered multiple groups to pursue
each competing approach. However, what I see here is not
amenable to this trick: We have a bunch of disparate
positions with no clear way of dividing them up. And besides,
that's not what you're
proposing: You're proposing that dissenting views simply be
told to buzz off, not that they actually be simultaneously
given a place to pursue an alternative.
No. The charter provides a limited scope for proposals. It's viable to
have a runoff of competing proposals with the context of the charter.
Anyone who wishes to participate in a productive process should be
welcome to participate. Anyone has alternative outside the scope of the
charter should start an alternative group of their own.
It isn't limited in the right ways IMO.
Now we just need more proposals ...
That would certainly help.
The Darwinian approach is in fact rarely used in the IETF,
and when it is used it is done in a way that is quite
different from what you are advocating. I will also point out
that its use tends to generate loads of ill-will that can
easily damage the prospects of any result. (Any of the many
debates on IPv6 deployment that have occured on the main IETF
list illustrate this point nicely.)
So, you must be a packet creationist:
Um, are you deliberately trying to be insulting? My observation was simply that
the IPng process, which involved having various different groups working on
competing proposals, generated a degree of animosity among the participants
that not only persists to this day, it continues to cause significant problems.
It strikes me that the explicit use of an "evolutionary" example to make a
point is in some sense diametrically opposed to any sort "creationist" belief.
Regardless, my goal here was only to point out that there are some really
serious long term downsides to using the Darwinian approach in the IETF.
Ned