--On Tuesday, June 12, 2007 17:22 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
John,
I'm not sure whether I agree with your proposal or not, but I
think
the most concrete way forward would be a proposal for specific
wording for draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis, which
Harald left on my plate and I left for Russ.
And that last clause -- i.e., the fact that document has not
progressed in three years or more -- may suggest either that (i)
if modifying it is the most constructive way forward, we have a
problem or (ii) that it is not an effective way forward, whether
or not it is constructive.
An extension of Paul Hoffman's recent comment is that the
community should start aggressively pushing back, at Last Call
if necessary, on every document that makes a requirement of
"IETF Consensus" for registration unless the need to that is
clearly and persuasively demonstrated for the individual case.
The way to reinforce Paul's message, with which I agree, is for
WGs (and responsible ADs) to get the message that requirement
will cause unnecessary pain on Last Call... possibly resulting
in thinking more seriously about it. That approach might be
less constructive than the one you suggest, but it would
probably be more effective.
To me, the fundamental question here is whether, in the last
analysis, we consider it more important to have
* the best and most extensive Internet interoperability
possible or
* a maximum of real or imagined IETF control over all
protocols in use on the Internet.
We claim to believe the former and then often behave as if we
believe the latter.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf