I have noticed that whenever someone does propose to do just that you come out and argue against it on vague, unsubstantiated grounds and when asked to clarify promise to provide a more detailed refutation at a later date.
it depends on whether my intuition and/or experience see a potential problem there, and also whether I have a sense that the proponents of that new idea are willing to acknowledge that potential. and often it seems like major design decisions are cast in stone before the problem is understood - and I object to that also. (NEA being the latest example that comes to mind)
of course different people have different ideas about what constitutes substantive grounds for an argument. I remember one DKIM proponent loudly telling me that since we couldn't predict the future my concerns about how DKIM would affect the reliability of mail were unfounded, all the while apparently oblivious to that the same argument could be used to say that his suspicions that DKIM would be useful were equally unfounded...
of course it takes time to write up details. there is also a tendency of people who have vague and/or poorly-thought-out proposals to demand that other people invest more work determining the nature of the problems with their proposals, than they have themselves invested in analyzing either the problem they purport to be trying to solve or the potential pitfalls of their proposed solution.
Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf