On 3/27/14 10:35 AM, George, Wes wrote:
I’d like to add another voice supporting the suggestion that this document
include an IESG warning that it is not an IETF-recommended thing to do, in
order to reduce possibility of confusion about whether or not IETF
consensus in this case is “yes this is a thing consenting adults can do on
the privacy of their own network” vs a ringing endorsement that “IETF
thinks that this is a thing that you SHOULD do on your network”.
I'm speaking as only 1/15 of the IESG, but putting IESG statements on
the tops of documents is a very icky business, *especially* on IETF
consensus documents. I'd much rather tell the WG, "There's a bunch of
IETF folks who came out during Last Call and said you have to fix this,
so go fix it" than try to get the IESG into the business of writing
text. If there's not IETF-wide rough consensus for the document as-is,
fix it or ditch it. Telling the IESG to "approve it, but put in a note
from on high saying why it's bogus" is....bogus.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478