On 12-07-28 04:15, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jul 27, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote: >> Then, why not publish it as an experimental document in IETF ? > > The objection to the draft was that if any draft ever describes a route > option for DHCP, the world will end. So that's not going to get My perception was similar, but as a co-author, I'm biased.
> consensus. This was in fact roughly the level of reasoning that went > on during the discussion—many nightmare scenarios were described, > assertions were made that these scenarios were inevitable, and on that > basis the proposal had to be dropped. I was hoping for some guidelines from ADs, but it didn't materalize. > This has happened every time one of these proposals has been advanced. > I don't see any reason to think that it will ever stop; consequently, > there is no way that the IETF can ever gain consensus on this. Section 4.2.3 of RFC2026 documents experimental publication process. There's interesting section about going ahead with the experimental publication, even if "the IESG considers that the document proposes something that conflicts with, or is actually inimical to, an established IETF effort, the document may still be published as an Experimental or Informational RFC". A note about warning disclaimer being added in such cases by IESG follows. Perhaps a viable way forward would be to ask the most active opponents to write a disclaimer section in which they could explain, why they think this option and its deployment is a bad idea? It would be added to the draft and then experimental publication path could be started? Arifumi-san mentioned RFC5006. It defines DNS option for RA. It followed exactly the same path that we are considering here. Cheers, Tomek _______________________________________________ mif mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
