Not a complaint on Dave or anyone else specifically in this thread BUT: 1. Jari posted a blog post about IANA, and I ask myself why IETF (yes, "we") can not stay focused 2. Jari explicitly said where comments where to be sent, and it was not this list Now, to the very interesting topic we are discussing ;-) On 4 jan 2014, at 22:59, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 1/4/2014 1:31 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> What is needed is that the specification do have a consequence analysis regarding expansion of use. > > This statement probably should serve as a touchstone to the general topic of seeking "design considerations" for new specifications and for any "interesting" features or choices that are made. > > (Whether such a discussion is part of the specification itself, part of a separate document, or merely a highlighted part of the working group archive, is a separate issue.) > > However pressing groups to make it possible for these considerations to be easily reviewed by others could be at least as interesting as getting groups to do more/better privacy considerations... > > This would not pre-determine the content of acceptable discussion -- such as demanding variable- or fixed-length values -- but it presses the group to be thoughtful enough to defend and document its choices ahead of the choices' being challenged. Yes, but I was more thinking of how good it would be *if* we start talk about scaling seriously in the form of the designer would talk about what design criteria was part of the design, and(!) what suggestions there are about changes if/when the address space is not large enough. Patrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail