Keith Moore wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
which is why i'm proposing a standard of "demonstrable immediate harm" rather
than the current system of "that's not how you should do it" or "that's not
how i would do it".
That's the wrong standard, it sets the bar way too low. IETF shouldn't
endorse anything unless it has justification to believe it is good; IETF
should not discourage anything unless it has justification to believe it
is bad. And that justification should come from engineering analysis
(or measurement, if it's feasible). Sadly, a lot of people in IETF do
not have engineering backgrounds and don't understand how to do such
analysis. This is something we need to change in our culture.
Feh, that seems awfully self-important to me (where "self" == "ietf").
"The IETF" (putting aside that it isn't a hive mind) isn't the ultimate
arbiter of good and bad, or useful/useless. Often there is utility to the
notion of "if you're doing to do this questionable thing, at least do this
questionable thing consistently". What you're advocating toes the best
is the enemy of the good line. Nothing would make the IETF
irrelevant faster than crossing that line.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf