Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-housley-two-maturity-levels

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

 




> On 2011-09-11 08:11, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> I do not think the following types of comments should be considered as
>> objections when judging this sort of consensus:
>> 
>> 
>> 2) This will not do any good

now lets see, this argument seems to be that the fact that a particular process change is useless should not 
stop the IETF from adopting the change

this argument would be nonsense if applied to a proposal for a technical standard - i.e. the 
IETF should adopt a technical standard that is known to be useless -- it is no less nonsense when
applied in this case - changes for the sake of publishing new bits should not be what the IETF
spends its time on

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
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]