Ralph Droms wrote:
Dave - one quick follow on to your observation about "will not work" that
falls somewhere between "will not work" and "don't like it". There is
another possibility: "works, but there's a much simpler way to meet the same
requirements"...
ahh, good. this nicely permits making the underlying distinction a bit more
strongly:
"There is a much simpler way to meet the requirements" states an engineering
preference. Further, it often involves comparing a concrete specification
against an unspecified idea. The issue therefore is not whether the criticism
is valid -- it often is -- but that it falls primarily into the "I don't like
it" category.
If there is a better way to solve a problem, those supporting the alternative
ought to go and specify it and gain community adoption. Otherwise, we suffer
the danger of preventing deployment of *any* capability, since we will always be
waiting for work to get done on that simpler way of meeting the same requirements.
The folks who actually did the work ought get to test that work in the market
place... unless there is a clear basis for claiming that it won't work and
reasonable consensus that the basis is valid.
d/
ps. The process model that informs this line of thinking says that we should be
strict in demanding strong indication of community support, when an effort
starts -- and I will claim while the working group proceeds -- but that it
should not factor that into the final standardization decision. In this latter
stage, this concern looks too much like sour grapes. (Not that it necessarily
is, but that it simply is not fair to use it as a basis for rejection at that
stage.)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf