On 10/14/22 11:46, Jay Daley wrote:
I agree that "poor" (or for that matter "good") may not be useful without supporting detail. At the same time, we've all seen really "poor" proposals that had so much wrong with them that it seemed worse than pointless to try to analyze them. How to deal with those kinds of proposals is an important question. Perhaps the best answer is to say "it's the proposer's job to build significant community support for their proposals before they expect an official activity from IETF to standardize it.""poor" doesn’t explain anything, it is simply a subjective summary of a set of specific observed problems. In my view, subjective summaries like this are unhelpful, particularly if they are presented without the underlying observed problems. The best result is achieved when those observed problems are presented without a summary. I have often seen examples where some people regard something as "poor" because it has ten things wrong with it while others regard it as "good" because it has ten things right with it. By using the subjective summaries of "poor" and "good" in that situation the two groups are worlds apart, but by sticking to the details they are much closer.
I probably wouldn't use the word "disrespect" here. But nobody should feel compelled to support ideas or protocols that they believe are harmful, or even to dissect exactly what's wrong with such ideas or protocols in detail. Maybe we just need a standardized, approved way to say "I respectfully disagree that this is a good idea."Anyway, can we agree that we can disrespect poor results, after the work has finished.No, we can’t.
Keith
