At 01:26 AM 7/4/2002 -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
That is a reasonable position. But I suggest that it implies
either that this material should go to Experimental, rather than
Proposed, or that the mechanism should be defined as applicable
to the cases that are understood and expanded only when the
implications of that expansion are better understood. Or...
As nearly as I can tell, your position is that folks can raise a spectre of
myriad, unspecified, abstract and unlikely concerns and then use that as a
claim that a specification should not go to Proposed... Until this long
list of negatives has been disproved.
That's very creative. It also is at considerable odds with typical IETF
criteria for advancement, John. It is also a heck of a good way to make
sure that no proposal ever goes to Proposed.
So, please explain what prompts such unique and extraordinary criteria for
this simple and mundane proposal?
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave(_at_)tribalwise(_dot_)com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850