Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Brian,
I've seen some argument that Scenario C, being more well-defined, is actually less complex than Scenario O.
I would really dispute that. There are layers of complexity in either case, and I think the scenario O analysis, because it's based on a real, existing organisation rather than a hypothetical one, simply contains more detail.
Also, I was surprised to find that of the two timelines in the writeups, the one for Scenario C was the shorter one. (That may reflect the writers' degree of optimism, however!)
Yes, it's unrealistic in my view. Setting up such an entity is not straightforward. The timeline in O seems attainable.
So the outcome is not settled in my mind yet.
I'd like your comments on why you find Scenario O simpler,
As noted above, the text digs into more detail than C. For example, C needs a lot more lawyering than O since it creates a completely new legal (and tax and insurance) structure. All the details described in O would have to be worked as internal procedures in C. I really see C as pure incremental work on top of O.
...and VERY much like your comments on where the details of Scenario O need "hacking", if that's the conclusion of the community.
I prefer to wait, to hack on whichever one we choose.
Brian
Harald
--On 21. september 2004 11:10 +0200 Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks, to you and the various authors, for this effort and for reducing the choice to a binary one.
To me, this clarifies that it's a one-horse race. I just can't see any argument for the extra complexity, overhead cost, and risk of Scenario C.
Obviously we would need to hack at the details of Scenario O, but for me there is no doubt that it's the way to go.
(My only regret is that Scenario O text doesn't include a short risk analysis, like Sceanrio C.)
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf