The question I have is who are the beneficiaries?
My input as a implementator.
For 30 or so years, I chose to followed the IETF output as an
commercial implementator based on sound engineering trust and faith on
follow peers, no reason to suspect or otherwise feel I need to appeal
anything. For the most part, it was all good positive and successful
adventure. No naiveness in separating what was for common good against
those what were isolated vendor specific, proprietary in nature - yet,
I do have the GM/WORLD conservative mindset - "Whats good for IETF, is
good for the World!" I don't wish to buck the system.
The wind has changed that for sure, and I wonder what is the end
result. I do know one thing: I don't like the idea that "IETF Appeal"
is something new (to me) I have to consider these days and when that
seems like an insurmountable mountain to climb when it comes to even
security conflicts and back down because of it, it becomes even more
vexing to whats going on. I am not use to this and the older one
gets, you seem to accept more even when you know (or feel) there are
problems. Only the young have the energy to fight for a cause and even
then less these days accepting things once considered problematic.
Just I hope the IETF leaders here make the right decision. From an
engineering standpoint, when you couple this two-step with the
RFC2119bis efforts, it will most likely;
a) make people think more about implementing what they
had trouble with implementing in the first place,
b) raise the barriers to adoption so you have less
implementators.
With my marketing hat on, rest assured this is leveraging material.
--
HLS
Sam Hartman wrote:
Hi. I feel it's reasonable for me to speak up since I have not done so
in over a year on this document so my opinion probably has not been
counted.
1) I support moving to a two level process.
2) I've generally supported versions of this document I have read. I
have not read this version in detail.
In regard to more global issues.
I do not think the following types of comments should be considered as
objections when judging this sort of consensus:
1) You are not solving the most important problem
2) This will not do any good
Statements of those forms can be combined with objections. "This will
not do any good and might do harm so I don't support it," clearly is an
objection. Objections can be as simple and non-specific as "I don't like
it," or more actionable. More thought out objections carry more weight
in some senses. I certainly would hate to see us block on someone simply
saying "I don't like it." Either enough people say that that we fail to
have rough consensus or not enough people say that and we move on. More
detailed objections may be worth blocking on for a time to try and
resolve; we seem to be past point of diminishing returns here.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf