Stewart,
Of course it is. I think virtually everyone would like to live in
a perfect world and most of us recognize that this is not it.
Therefore, it is clear that - whatever we might say in any particular
argument - we all want things to get better. Consequently, proposals
to change "what is" will always be a recurring event.
The question we really have to ask - as dissected by Brian in some
detail - is whether or not a specific proposal is enough "better" than
what we have already (assuming that what we have already is both under-
stood and used appropriately) to overcome the "steady-state friction"
typically used to prevent change for the sake of marginal gain with an
unquantifiable risk for unanticipated side effects.
--
Eric
________________________________
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:22 PM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: Gray, Eric; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re:
Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]
Eliot Lear wrote:
I agree. As usual we seem to be stuck in an infinite loop
on this
mailing list with the cycle being somewhere between 6 months
and 3 years.
The fact that we keep coming back to this topic may be a message in
itself!
- Stewart
Eliot
Gray, Eric wrote:
Brian,
I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we
have
not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run
into
trouble is when different sets of people disagree as
to
which of the steps we are currently working on.
Quite frankly, I believe we can address the
second
step (which of the requirements are not met today?)
with
a firm "none."
This is - IMO - the basis for the apparent
stodgy
resistance to change.
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx
[mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx]
--> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
--> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:36 AM
--> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
--> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
--> Subject: Engineering our way out of a brown
paper bag [Re:
--> Consensus based on reading tea leaves]
-->
--> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--> >
--> >
--> > --On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200
Yaakov Stein
--> > <yaakov_s@xxxxxxx> <mailto:yaakov_s@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
--> >
--> >> The only thing I am sure about is
--> >> that
--> >> consensus on this list is for keeping
everything exactly
--> as it is.
--> >
--> >
--> > I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus.
--> >
--> > I do, however, see a rather strong
--> consensus-of-the-speakers against
--> > using MS-Word document format for anything
"official".
-->
--> I think we need to tackle this whole issue, if
we do decide to
--> tackle it, in a much more systematic way.
-->
--> - what are our functional requirements?
--> - which of them are not met today?
--> - what are the possible solutions, and what is
their practical
--> and operational cost?
--> - which, if any, solutions should we adopt, on
what timescale?
-->
--> I believe that if we took a systematic approach
like that, the issue
--> of how we determine consensus would be broken
into enough small
--> steps that it really wouldn't be an issue.
-->
--> Brian
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf