On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > [...]
> I'm presuming that's what you mean. I was thinking more of "due process", since that's roughly what the IETF process is: due process for publication (and management, as in moving Standards to Historical status) of Internet Standards. >> 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. BTNS produced technically-correct protocols that no one implemented. We concluded that WG even though it had more work to do. Having the WG guaranteed nothing. I'm sure there are other examples, but that one is one that you and I were directly involved in. Yes, that's not an example of a WG producing something bad in the sense that you're after, but it was bad in the sense that we littered the RFC landscape with something that would go unused. >> 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. If there's an inconsistency between the charter and the proposals, then that has to be addressed: that's part of the process. It may mean updating the charter, updating the proposals, or even concluding the WG. > 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. Your posts have been more of the "this is not good, stop it" vein than "the proposal is inconsistent with the WG charter [details]". You can't have it both ways either. Please provide details or stop distracting. (BTW, reviewing the charter just now, my only complaint is that channel binding is not mentioned, but I think it arguably falls under "hooks for authentication", and anyways, lack of presence in the charter is not really a problem, since channel binding is a no-brainer for this protocol.) Nico -- _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
