At 05:09 PM 6/6/2001 -0700, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
>to carry your argument to its logical conclusion, no working group would
>ever actually produce any final document, because someone would always be
>free to introduce additional requirements for a just and noble cause.
>
>the ietf is about engineering, not perfection.
>
>engineering is about bounding a problem, looking at the tradeoffs, and
>coming up with a solution.
>
>the ietf is about fairness, not perfection.
>
>fairness is about providing an process that has transparency and closure.
>
>the time to raise these issues was when the group was developing the charter
>and negotiating it with the iesg...
>
>/mtr
Hi Everyone,
(Sorry for the delayed response - been travelling and couldn't get
to this right away.)
Marshall: Thanks for that haiku. :-)
Everyone: We did discuss that subject in the BoF in Adeliade. I'm
sure it's in the minutes. I don't have access to that right now
(still on a plane) but I think it's near the term "rat hole". The
reason that this WG was allowed to form was that the scope was limited
to the existing protocol. We could address transport deficiencies to
provide authentication and verifiable delivery, but we were constrained
to not touch the actual format. As I proposed it, that was to keep us
from going down all of the paths of "correcting" perceived deficiencies.
As Marshall suggests, that would have lead this WG into discussions of
great lengths, which may never be fully resolved to the satisfaction
of everyone. I don't think that any of us want to go there at this
time.
Thanks,
Chris
