On 3/27/14 5:13 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 3/27/14, 3:02 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 3/27/14 10:35 AM, George, Wes wrote:
I’d like to add another voice supporting the suggestion that this
document
include an IESG warning that it is not an IETF-recommended thing to
do, in
order to reduce possibility of confusion about whether or not IETF
consensus in this case is “yes this is a thing consenting adults can
do on
the privacy of their own network” vs a ringing endorsement that “IETF
thinks that this is a thing that you SHOULD do on your network”.
I'm speaking as only 1/15 of the IESG, but putting IESG statements on
the tops of documents is a very icky business, *especially* on IETF
consensus documents. I'd much rather tell the WG, "There's a bunch of
IETF folks who came out during Last Call and said you have to fix this,
so go fix it" than try to get the IESG into the business of writing
text. If there's not IETF-wide rough consensus for the document as-is,
fix it or ditch it. Telling the IESG to "approve it, but put in a note
from on high saying why it's bogus" is....bogus.
So I think the issue, and I don't want to second guess the chairs here
(unless asked, in which case it's my job), is that fundamentally if you
don't like this approach there's no fixing it. It's just icky.
Oh, don't get me wrong. When I say "fix it", I don't mean that they
necessarily need to fix the protocol the approach. I simply mean fix the
document, which may amount to the WG getting sufficient text in to say,
"This is only useful in X Y and Z circumstances and is otherwise a bad
idea and you shouldn't do it." We are happy to publish all sorts of
applicability statements that say, "This is stupid in all but these
circumstances." I just don't want the IESG to have to write it up. The
WG should make their document reflect what the community wants.
So if you dislike it, but concede that it does work for some people
then you're in my camp. I absolutely would not go to the wall over this
approach even if I wouldn't employ it and find it to be more trouble
then it's worth. There is evidence of successful deployments and a
plausible rational for why people find it necessary.
Just in case that "you" was me: I am completely agnostic about this
document; I'm just talking about what the community should be expecting
of the IESG. If the community decides that this thing is useful to
document for the segment of people who do want to do it, have at it. If
not, not.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478