John C Klensin wrote:
I agree that there were perceived problems that needed to be
fixed. I think you have given a good summary of most of them.
It is exactly for that reason that I did not propose rolling
back 5378 (or 5377).
Unfortunately, we do not get to pick and choose the parts of a problematic
standard that we like. The thing is in force. We have a crisis because of it.
While we had some problems before it went into force, we did not have any crises.
By pursuing a path of "use whichever you want" we wind up adding more ambiguity
and, therefore, fuzziness, to an already seriously broken situation.
Folks,
We are stuck in the midst of a classic decision-making error, revolving around
sunk costs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost> which leads to persistent
efforts to fix the unfixable.
Gosh, only a little more effort or a small band-aid here or there, will take
away the immediate problem.
In reality, tenacity due to a desire to save the invested effort is that it
virtually never results in a real fix.
We need to reverse the current spec, go back to the one that worked fine (for
the cases it covered) and re-think how to handle the new stuff.
To repeat: The idea that anyone would think it viable to have a potentially
small -bis effort need to rewrite potentially large portions of the original
text demonstrates just how stuck in the mire we are, with no clue how to get out.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf