Re: I-D ACTION:draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis-10.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



John,

I do not personally have a problem with any of the suggested models, including yours.

However, I have a problem in how we are discussing this topic. It has already been established a long time ago that you and many other people have strong opinions about this matter, and its easy to find arguments to support all those opinions. This is why we have been trying to find a middle ground that finds a reasonable balance between keeping the RFC Editor as an independent publisher and allowing important labels to be attached in exceptional situations. It is not news that what we proposed as a compromise position isn't optimal from some people's point of view. But a small number of voices should not drive the entire community's choice.

So, may I ask that if we propose some other resolution, we talk not just about why that's a great proposal, but also how the proposal addresses the diverging opinions from various sides of the argument? I am not claiming by any means that the proposal that we sent out is the right one, but I think we need to try to honor the different opinions in some manner. The folk who want as much independence as possible for the RFC Editor, those who want the ability to put in mandatory notes, etc. FWIW, several of us believed we had a model that was acceptable to most of us and could be approved in the two relevant bodies. If that's not the case, too bad, but this means that we have to find a new compromise that works for everyone or decide that we have sufficiently rough consensus to move on anyway. Its NOT enough to change the proposal so that whoever was unhappy now becomes happy. Negotiation 101. I already checked and the other extreme camp feels your suggested changes are unacceptable.

Also, I believe the first order of priority is to find out what the IETF and the larger community wants to do here. Lets do the right thing, and put the process questions (such as which RFC needs to be updated) aside for the moment. We will find a way to solve those things, they should not drive the big decisions.

I also want to remind everyone that it matters very little what the difference between various versions of this document have been. The only thing that matters is that we come to an end result that is (perhaps somewhat grudgingly) accepted by most of us so that we can get the new headers into use!

Jari

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]