On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:00 AM Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 8:51 AM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I believe your statement of intent. But I think it's fair to realize > > that there is already tremendous pressure to deploy implementations > > before they've been formally approved, and there's a danger that any > > kind of distinguished "mark" will have the (unintended) effect of > > promoting deployment of the marked version of a protocol. > > regardless of 'published or not' folk will always push for the early > implementation of FOO before it has been 'ratified'. > it's pretty clear that this happens, and that nothing about this > discussion is going to change that. > *I* think that we really want early implementations of FOO before it has been ratified - without this we don't have the "running code" part of "rough consensus and running code. I think the trouble comes in when there are *deployments* of FOO before it has been ratified.... W -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
