I have noticed that whenever someone does propose to do just that you
come out and argue against it on vague, unsubstantiated grounds and
when asked to clarify promise to provide a more detailed refutation
at a later date.
it depends on whether my intuition and/or experience see a potential
problem there, and also whether I have a sense that the proponents of
that new idea are willing to acknowledge that potential. and often it
seems like major design decisions are cast in stone before the problem
is understood - and I object to that also. (NEA being the latest
example that comes to mind)
of course different people have different ideas about what constitutes
substantive grounds for an argument. I remember one DKIM proponent
loudly telling me that since we couldn't predict the future my concerns
about how DKIM would affect the reliability of mail were unfounded, all
the while apparently oblivious to that the same argument could be used
to say that his suspicions that DKIM would be useful were equally
unfounded...
of course it takes time to write up details. there is also a tendency of
people who have vague and/or poorly-thought-out proposals to demand that
other people invest more work determining the nature of the problems
with their proposals, than they have themselves invested in analyzing
either the problem they purport to be trying to solve or the potential
pitfalls of their proposed solution.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf