--On Saturday, September 10, 2011 16:11 -0400 Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > I do not think the following types of comments should be > considered as objections when judging this sort of consensus: > > 1) You are not solving the most important problem Sure. As long as we differentiate between than and "this will not solve the problem it claims to solve", "the problem this addresses is not worth solving", and "this may make things worse". While I agree with many of the meta-comments that have been made about this discussion, I think the some of the supporters of the proposal have tended to lump comments along the lines of those three together with the one you cite and its close relatives, "you should solve some other problem instead" and "you aren't solving all of the problem". They are different, at least IMO. > 2) This will not do any good Again, I agree, but I suggest that is different from the argument Dave Crocker makes frequently (and better than I can) which, if I may paraphrase, is that any process change has significant coats and some risks and therefore it should be a requirement that anyone advocating such a change show a compelling need for it. I can accept "this will not do any good" as a category of position that should not be considered an objection iff "no compelling requirement and/or advantage for this has been demonstrated" still counts as legitimate objection. If that were not the case, I can think of any number of protocol specifications that could be decorated with a sufficient number of optional-and-useless features to make the most option- and profile-happy of SDOs dance with joy. Such decorations would be of particular interest in the security area where we have traditionally felt that options that are useless and likely to be badly-implemented and little-used often increase risk by providing unnecessary attack vectors. :-( john john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf