Hiya, On 17/07/15 16:01, Joe Touch wrote: >> > I also don't see any need >> > for RFC3929 stuff here, nor do I think that is suited for cases >> > like this at all. > Hmm. I'd like to understand why you think it isn't suited for EXACTLY > this case.
3929 says "In most of these cases, there are two or more competing proposals at approximately the same level of technical maturity, deployment, and specification." I think that doesn't match this situation well where we have one draft that's fairly fully specified with code and some limited deployment (but that would likely change in the WG process) and another that is really an outline, but an outline that can clearly form a basis for achieving the same functionality if a bunch of relatively obvious work is done in future. > >> > IMO Martin can decide based on his take on >> > the reasonable set of technical arguments already made, none of >> > which are really "winning." > RFC3929 is quite illuminating in NOT offering "AD selects" as an option. 3929 does however say " This is not meant to provide an exhaustive list" and one of the choices listed is to select one person to just pick (in 4.3). I think Martin in this case would be a good person given that he's afaik not stated which he favours yet has paid attention to all the arguments. (Well, I at least don't know which he favours and I believe he's paid attention:-) I will admit however, that 3929 isn't my favourite RFC - I figure it was a reasonable attempt to codify something that may be better off handled case-by-case. But reasonable people can reasonably disagree about that. S. _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
