On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 08:13:42AM -0800, joel jaeggli wrote: > I think we dramatically better off, if we are willing to critically > consider the implications of proposals someplace and expose the record > of that, and I don't have a better location on offer then here.
I completely agree. But if we're going to do that, calling an approach we don't like names adds nothing to the debate. For instance, I think there have been serious arguments against some techniques, and I think those are useful contributions. I'd be the last person to say, "Don't criticise." But such critiques need to come with well-developed arguments. In this case, for instance, one party suggested that there were technical reasons not to use http(s) as a new encapsulation, and the retort was (in effect) that someone's going to do this and hey, anything goes so we must write it down. That's not much of an argument, and it's abusive of the efforts in the WG as well. Hence my objection. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
