For some reason, it's also forgotten that WG adoption does not equate to a WG last call... It has been said several times that several of the 4rd-u features can be accommodated by the MAP spec should these ever be consented to by the WG as necessary. Candidly, however these technical matters appear to be secondary, as they were on the MAP design team, and the circus on the matter is more about the ego of an individual and his style of collaboration, including also the name of the draft.
There likely is no better way to end this than to get the WG to adopt a solution that not only has considerable support but also several trial implementations, and let it progress as a standards track WG document capturing consented WG feedback as it does so. This is indeed a basis of standardization. My 2c. 2012/4/10 Alain Durand <[email protected]> > Remi, Woj: > > We have heard a number of times that you both think the "other" solution > is broken. Technical points have been made, no need for personal attacks. > > I'm getting concerned that the working group is losing sight of the very > reason why we participate to the IETF; to promote good standards, not to > fight endlessly about which of the two or three solutions we have on the > table (and that are 99% identical) is more "pure". Standardizing is about > finding common ground, not about ego, fighting for whose name is on the > draft, character assassination, using disparaging language, threatening > appeals, boycotting, or ballot stuffing. > > Alain, wg-co-chair. >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
