Bob,
BN> I made almost exactly the same argument
BN> for an "Architectural Considerations" section on a par
excellent. two, independent occurrences of a crazy idea by unrelated
lunatics probably means there is some merit to it. (by which i mean that
any desire to dismiss the idea because it is easy to dismiss the
proposer gets more difficult when there are multiple, independent
proposers. And, yes, it must be saturday night, for this kind of
writing.)
BN> "Any specification that creates interesting features should be required
BN> to specify its requirements on providers and its impact on consumers."
BN> -- might be a bit too optimistic...I don't think it goes
BN> quite far enough in noting that it will probably take
BN> review by members of the small cadre of IETF architecture
BN> experts to be sure that all relevant requirements and
that's fine. the point of the exercise is to require specification
authors to pay significant attention to the question. this actively
creates a dialogue on the issues, rather than hoping that some clever
architect notices this particular document.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>