Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
ted> However, this spec reflects operations which have been
ted> stable/backwards compatible for a very long time. Given that, it is
ted> important to the community which deploys this that it be fairly
ted> difficult to amend. One way to achieve that would have been to make
ted> this standards track; that would require standards action to update
ted> or obsolete it later. When we discussed that back at the beginning
ted> of this process, though, it was pretty clear that some folks would
ted> use the working group discussion around that to try to insert
ted> functionality that would result in breaking changes. While it would
ted> have been kind of unlikely for any of those to win out against the
ted> need for maintaining interoperability, the result would have been a
ted> pretty big increase in the amount of effort needed to get this
ted> published.
> This is the rub -- depending on your definitions of "the community" and
> "some folks" in the statement above, the outcome might be completely
> reasonable and justified, or blatantly illegitimate.
I agree with Mark.
Ted seems to be describing some kind of tyranny of full consensus.
Had this gone into a WG, and the WG has been chartered not to break anything,
then I think that we would respect that, and the WG, and WG chairs refused,
then the IESG would make it the case.
So I don't really buy Ted's argument, sorry.
Based upon Ted's comments, I think that maybe we shouldn't publish this.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
