On August 26, 2015 2:42:26 AM Juergen Schoenwaelder
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:53:55PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote:
> Hopefully, a decision to change all existing models (including vendor
> models!) will be based on something more technical than the fact that
> a group of people "really like it" some other way.
I'm equally unsure that having an argument of "I got there first" is a
compelling argument given the number of folks (including vendors) who
have stated willingness (or even support) for change. I think having a
major class of users stand up and say this is important should garner
some notice.
Please keep in mind that we are talking about several published
proposed standards that have been implemented and deployed. I think
there must be convincing technical reasons to declare them broken and
to redo them.
As Acee says, we have been trying very hard to minimize any impact to
existing work even when the result is suboptimal. I also agree that
changing PS RFCs should not be done without serious consideration. That
said, the IETF process does permit updates and replacements based on WG and
IETF consensus -- which is not quite the same as your last statement.
Lou
/js
--
Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
