Hiya, I see a lot of folks preferring option 1 which is basically to wait and see if some magic pixie dust appears before November that causes the WG to achieve rough consensus for one approach over the other.
The WG have failed to choose a *startung point* a couple of times now and all that will happen in the next 4 months (including holidays) is that the two proposals will be slightly harder to separate since the authors will inevitable try adopt the strengths of the alternative proposal where possible and mitigate whatever has been seen as a weakness in their own proposal. I have seen this pattern a number of times in the IETF and it has always ended badly that I've seen. This one seems to me to be ending similarly badly, sadly. Can someone explain why I'm highly likely to be wrong and just what pixie dust will magically appear here and help over the long hot summer? (During which many sensible folk will go away for a month.) IMO, option 1 == more pointless prevarication. Closing the WG now or letting Martin pick now are the only sensible choices IMO. I think asking the AD to pick is more sensible in cases like this since regardless of which *starting point* is adopted, the WG will get to change that however they like before the process is done. We are not doing an IETF LC here, we're supposed to be deciding which *starting point* to work from, more than a year after we should have gotten that done. I also don't see any need for RFC3929 stuff here, nor do I think that is suited for cases like this at all. IMO Martin can decide based on his take on the reasonable set of technical arguments already made, none of which are really "winning." Frankly, I think the unwillingness to choose-and-make-progress in this WG is demonstrating the IETF at it's near worst. (And yes, this is written in irritated-by-that mode;-) S. _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
