Hi Stephen,
At 01:59 29-01-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Responses to Cullen below, but this is getting to the point
where unless someone else who likes the idea wants to join
the discussion, I'm going to conclude that we're collectively
either unwilling or unable to consider 3933 experiments and
regard this one as dead, which maybe means 3933 is dead-ish
too, I dunno. (And before someone asks: no, I don't conclude
that its just a problem with this particular experiment, and
yes, I might be wrong there:-)
In 2004 it was written that the IETF has designed process changes
over the last ten years in one of two ways: announcement by the IESG,
sometimes based on informal agreements with limited community
involvement and awareness, and formal use of the same mechanism used
for protocol specification.
My first reaction was that IETF participants are unwilling or unable
to consider 3933 experiments. My second reaction was: what if
draft-farrell-ft was an IESG statement? Would the same outcome be
reached? The comments posted to this mailing list were
addressed. The concerns were left open.
Regards,
-sm