On 8/4/2014 9:18 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Sun, Aug 03, 2014 at 05:08:50PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote:
By all means. Stand on process over correctness.
Process is required to produce integrity.
in·teg·ri·ty (n-tgr-t)
n.
1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
I'm presuming that's what you mean.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
Process is interfering with this one.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.
Process is interfering with this one too.
> It may not produce correct
results, and it may not produce the results you want. If the result is
broken, damaging, ... then it can be rejected at any time, including
later, during IESG and IETF reviews.
We both know that's not how the IETF works. Once a charter is approved,
it is used as fait accompli that the work is needed and should move forward.
I think you should let the process continue rather than attempt to shut
this down.
I'm OK with that plan, but not OK with posts that make claims as to how
solutions address the self-contradictory requirements of the charter.
I.e., this group cannot have it both ways. If you want to proceed with a
flawed charter, then stop holding it up as the gold standard for solutions.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Tcpinc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
