John, Keith, I really have to say that you both seem to be talking about things that have nothing whatsoever to do with my proposal. ISTM that you are of the opinion that anything the IETF does to go faster is bad in and of itself because its scary. This also seems to me to be an example of the kind of process discussion wandering onto everyone's favourite hobby horse that I mentioned before. So I don't see any change to the draft is required, but if you do have a direct comment on the draft, that'd be welcome and I'd be very happy to get such comments. Or perhaps I'm missing something that is relevant to my draft, but if so, I don't see it, so you need to bring your concerns down to issues with the draft if you are making a specific comment rather than being generally worried. Cheers, S. On 12/16/2012 08:49 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Sunday, December 16, 2012 15:08 -0500 Keith Moore > <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> to this I'd add >> >> (5) Widespread, examined belief that the specification has >> minimal impact on the Internet architecture. >> >> I keep seeing IETF standardize protocols that seem likely to >> have seriously damaging architectural impact without much, if >> any, examination of that impact (the PCP and MIF work come >> most immediately to mind, but I could cite several others >> given a few minutes to think about it). I'd hate to see a >> fast-tracking procedure used as a way to further circumvent >> such examination. > > I think I would have said "impact on the Internet architecture > is well-understood and judged to be acceptable" instead, but we > agree about the general principle. > > john > > >