> From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxx] > there is one important class of bad ideas that doesn't go > away in IETF -- the class of bad ideas that is obviously bad > from a wider perspective but which looks good to a set of > people who are focused on a narrow problem. and in IETF what > we often do with those ideas is to protect them and encourage > development of them in isolation by giving them a working > group. we sometimes even write those groups' charters in > such a way as to discourage clue donation or discussion of > other ways of solving the problem. That is a somewhat cynical way to describe IPSEC isn't it? Care to mention any other groups that fit that description? The IESG and the IETF in general has hardly demonstrated an infalible understanding of what is and is not a bad idea, nor for that matter has anyone else. This is a research area and there are plenty of areas where the great and the good get it wrong. Take Gopher for example, I remember the days when the assumption was that the Web would merge into gopher rather than the other way round. After all the Gopher people knew so much more about networking. Only they did not understand the UI issue and it turned out thsat Tim had a much more powerful idea despite not being an IETF longtimer. My theory is that Vint and Jon set up the whole IETF infrastructure as a Gordian knot test. Keep the systems safe from over tampering until someone comes along who is decisive enough and addressing a need that is so urgent that either the layers of obfustication will yield or they will snap. No Keith, you are not Vint Cerf, or Tim Berners-Lee and neither is anyone else here including me. I know that folk focused on narrow problems have tended to come up with narrow solutions. That is hardly suprising, the rules of engagement here prohibit the discussion of the general. Take DKIM for example we are about to discuss a one off policy language to serve a single protocol, not because there is only a single protocol that requires policy but because there are people in the establishment who tried policy fifteen years ago, failled to solve the problem and have declared it 'insoluble'. There is also the problem of the other group who need s to be part of the policy discussion which has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be unwilling to listen to any outside view. Try to explain a problem to them and its 'la la la I'm not listening'. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf