My immediate concern is that we know
better than to conduct
this sort of BOF in this sort of manner.
What sort of manner is that, Dave?
I ask a serious question and I get a sarcastic reply. That's a great
way to have a productive conversation.
1. You are right. My only excuse is that I felt/feel I had made two postings
that largely already answered your question, and your query reflected none of
that content. So the sarcasm was a reaction to having to repeat myself.
See:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40484.html
and, of course:
<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg40496.html>.
2. Other than having the opening tone be questionable, the note very much *did*
provide content intended to be strictly productive.
The proponents of this BOF are following the community's documented
procedures [1]. What I'm hearing is that there is a underlying problem
with the adequacy of those procedures.
That's a worthy discussion, but my real concerns are the realities surrounding
this type of BOF for this type of topic.
In simplistic (but productive and non-sarcastic) terms, I think things reduce to
the hurdles that an AD can/should impose prior to approving a BOF. Some topics
warrant higher hurdles. There is ample basis for viewing DIX as one of them, IMO.
I think the title of Thomas Narten's draft is particularly apt, because it
focuses on productivity rather than formal process.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf