At 19:17 27/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
My proposition would be to create a "minority position" system.
Where such groups could be accepted as opposing without having to be fighting.
There is a perfectly civilised way of handling minority opinions already.
Please see RFC 3246 and RFC 3248 for an example I was personally
involved in. 3246 is the consensus and 3248 is the minority
opinion.
Unfortunately not. RFC 3246 is Standard Track, RFC 3248 is
informational. RFC 3246 is published. This case is when two IETF
groups have different opinions.
The case I refer to is when an SSDO consensus opposes an IETF-WG
consensus, while the Internet is no more a place where one can
consider that an erroneous RFC supported by market leaders will
quickly deprecate and not hurt.
The resources of the other SSDO are dedicated to its own business. It
may however make the effort of a QA delegate to the Internet standard
process. Experience shows that without an MoU a conflict may quickly
develop (as if two foot-ball teams met, but one team would, in
addition to be a challenger, have only one player present. This is
all the more true if the results of the match counts for the world cup).
The "minority position" would avoid to enter into an SSDO/IETF
complex MoU and liaison committee (I feel you are not found of
anyway). All the more than the problem may be purely occasional and
the solution be to politely pay attention to mutual needs rather than
to ban the SSDO liaison. This can only be detrimental to a final
common solution and would resolve nothing since the SSDO has human
resources a plenty.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf