"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
Arguments on complexity are too easy to make. Every time a proposal
is made I hear the complexity argument used against it. Everything
we do is complex. Computers are complex. Committee process usually
increases complexity somewhat.
If an argument can always be used what is the discrimination power?
How about using answers to the question "Is this complexity needed?"
as a discriminator?
Sometimes, there is no better solution than one with certain
complexity. That isn't inherently bad.
I'm not sure the need for this particular complex solution was
demonstrated. I don't recall anyone defending it. The experimental
track thus seems appropriate, if it should be published at all.
/Simon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf