Bill, On 2008-12-12 18:01, William Herrin wrote: ... > So, here's my master plan. I'm playing it by ear so this can still > change, but this is what I'm thinking: > > Step 1. Where we are right now. In step 1, I'll make additions based > on this criteria: You propose something architecturally different than > what's already there and I understand it well enough to form a mental > picture of how that would work. I don't have to agree; I just have to > understand. > > If I can get to a draft where there are only cosmetic changes from the > last one, I'm going to "close" the document to additions. I put close > in quotes because if something genuinely different and obviously valid > comes along I'll still add it but that'll be it for anything more > minor. > > Step 2. I ask each of you to propose eliminating one or more of the > strategies or variants on the grounds that they are in some way > unworthy of further attention. If I get a strong consensus (meaning > lots of you say yes and no more than a couple say no) then I'll remove > that strategy.
I don't think that "remove" is the right thing to do. I think that such strategies should continue to be documented in a "roads not followed" section of the draft, with a succinct explanation. Otherwise, you can be sure, they will come back again and again. > > Step 3. I'll ask for weak consensus on forming IETF working groups to > pursue specific strategy variants. Weak consensus means lots have > something to say and more agree than disagree. I'll mark them > accordingly in the document. My hunch is that two or three will pass > this hurdle, but we'll see when the time comes. Wouldn't you also want to see at least one proof-of-concept proposal for each? We have plenty of those around, so enumerating the ones that match each strategy variant would probably make the weak consensus more explicit. > Step 4. I'll reformat the draft as an I-D and offer it to the group as > Bill Herrin's recommendation. I'll propose that it become the RRG's > recommendation to the IETF and be published as an informational RFC. This seems like a reasonable series of steps to me. Brian _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
