Hiya,
On 01/29/2013 05:49 PM, SM wrote:
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.
I don't think that draft would ever have been suitable for
an IESG statement (maybe some bits might, but not the whole
thing) so speculating on that is probably not useful.
I also don't think it was by any means a perfect proposal,
but I do think it was good enough to try out or would have
been with the text changes discussed during LC.
It was proposed as an experiment, but I think was interpreted
as a proposed process change, at least as I read a lot (but
by no means all) of the comments. And I think it was that
kind of concern that was left open.
I'm sure that misinterpretation was partly my fault and that
some or all of the folks commenting disagree with me that their
comments were based on a misinterpretation of what was proposed.
I was also surprised by the extent to which comments focused
on near worst possible outcomes.
But in any case, that's life - I don't think the draft had
anything like rough consensus however you look at it, so
Adrian's call was correct and on we go to the next thing.
I just hope the next thing isn't more process discussion
involving me:-)
S.
Regards,
-sm