--On Friday, 20 January, 2006 04:30 +0100 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> wrote:
Hi John,
I understand your points and somehow agree on some of them.
I can try to establish a prioritization if that can help, and
certainly I will be happy to keep updating the document if at
the end the decision is to keep it in a web page, or just as a
live I-D, or whatever else.
Just as long as you understand that it is going to be hard or
impossible to make it binding, or even strongly suggestive, on
the IAD via an IETF process without getting consensus that...
(1) It is not clear that, with the IASA in place and
specifically assigned the meeting site selection task,
the IESG has the authority to ask for and evaluate...
unless you propose, and succeed, in modifying BCP 101.
(2) It seems unlikely to me that you would get that
consensus if it were asked for, at least without many
months of nit-picking.
Let me give one example on-list and then I'm going to drop back
out of the discussion. At the end of the first paragraph of
section 2.2, you say "The IETF desires to meet in countries with
significant actual or potential participation." The "potential"
part of that criterion has never been agreed upon. We have
tended to go for actual participation, rather than trying to
create a presence where there are potential participants in the
hope of luring them in. I can think of many reasons to not
change that. You obviously either think we should or you
misunderstand the criteria that have been used for years. I
suspect we could have a very long, and ultimately inconclusive,
discussion on this subject. Indeed, I believe that once a few
people started enumerating what they saw as pros and cons, we
would discover that a very large portion of the IETF community
would have an opinion on the subject. Interesting, but just not
very likely to be productive. And, while that assertion sort of
leapt out at me, there are many others like it in the document.
I'd personally prefer to delegate this problem and discussion to
the IAOC, as BCP 101 appears to do, and let them sort it out
without an extended and detailed debate on the IETF list.
Just my opinion, of course.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf