I'm afraid it's not only 6789 that's doomed. ConEx is very likely
to be shut down entirely. Right now we're being told to get on schedule;
but in essence we _can't_ stay on schedule: thus the question is whether
we'll get this draft to the IESG before we're shut down, not _whether_
we'll be shut down. :^(
John, we are fully capable of being on schedule, except for people who
throw shoes into the gears ("sabotage") by not listening and arguing
against the people who actually agree with them.
Bob and my strength comes in part from understanding each others positions
well enough where even though we disagree on some things we can often
unilaterally write text which is acceptable to each other. The text at
hand reflects a carefully thought out, although slightly dated compromise
in this regard. Yes it does need to be updated, but not to change its
meaning, only to reflect newer documents in this area.
To the extent that your position is to narrow the class of acceptable
designs under *abstract*mechanism*, your comments are totally out of scope.
Your design is within within abstract-mechanism's current design coverage,
as is Bob's. I asked you, in private, to please stop *helping* because you
single handedly wasted at least a year of WG time and energy arguing stuff
that doesn't matter. In the end packets vs bytes can only be an
engineering compromise. We can't bind it early and all solutions have to
be explicit about their tradeoffs. All of your argument will be part of
that calculation as will Bob's.
So I ask again, this time in public: Please stop helping. Please don't
argue with people who don't disagree with you.
And I apologize the WG chairs and other authors for making sausage in
public.
Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay
Privacy matters! We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments. We treat privacy and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:05 AM, John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net> wrote:
I had intended my posting for the ConEx list, not
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org. (Sorry
to bother you folks.)
I will respond to Bob's reply on the ConEx list after the IESG telechat.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>