Watson, On 02/08/14 19:46, Watson Ladd wrote: > design by committee?
I guess you're using the above as a short-hand for the various ways in which IETF WGs, or maybe any set of people, can screw up. If so, that's ok-ish. However, I've also seen people use that phrase without any understanding of how the IETF works, where they really seem to believe they're dealing with a Robert's Rules clique sitting around a table and not with a mailing list where what's required is to make technically sound points in your emails, and nothing else. I think it'd be better if we all here kept the latter to the forefront of our minds and didn't get all wrapped up in the problems of non-existent committees. And speaking of which... > Why don't we attempt to determine which shortcomings need to be > addressed and how to fix them with tcpcrypt, instead of design > by committee? The WG now has four proposals to deal with. In a way that's a good thing as it indicates a level of interest from serious proponents of each of the solutions. It clearly does make the WG's task more complicated though. Fairness requires a bit of due diligence before down-selecting to one starting point for the WG. ISTM that the chairs are doing that and without delay. S. _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
