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.
Of course not. But why should the IETF represent something as its
opinion when the IETF doesn't actually have that opinion? And why
should the IETF , given that it claims to be an engineering body,
express an opinion that is based on mere handwaving? Doing either of
these can only harm our reputation.
Often there is utility to the notion of "if you're doing to do this
questionable thing, at least do this questionable thing consistently".
Actually I keep wishing that we had a way to say "if you're going to
engage in this dubious or harmful practice, at least do it this way that
seems less harmful than other ways". Because we too often get stuck
between having justification for saying that some practice is bad, but
not having consensus on a "good" way to solve the problem, or not having
a "good" solution worked out in sufficient detail.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf