On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:47:23AM -0700, David W. Hankins wrote: > I don't know if this is considered bad form at the IETF, but I think > we need to seriously (re)consider this compromise; a show of good > faith on DSL Forum's behalf to document their (ab)uses. I may not have been clear; We have had other protocols at the IETF that were turned down for publication through consensus of the relevant practicioners, who believed these protocols would actively damage the Internet. But they were widely deployed anyway. The absence of documentation of those protocols was (looking back, in my opinion) a detriment to our community (and, as an aside, a catalyst in the ever-shrinking relevance of the IETF). One example within DHC WG's lifetime and applicability would be the WPAD option. It is /still/ used today despite never becoming an RFC, it /did/ actively damage the Internet's security (so these practicioners were vindicated) and so has changed over the years, but there is also measurable damage for the absence of any specification; people must now seek this documentation in "DHCP Undergrounds." I think therefore the question of permitting the publication of this draft in this form (and therefore as a DHC WG item) bears re-evaluation, even if its technical contents (and capacity to actively damage the Internet) remain effectively unchanged since the last time it was rejected as a WG item. I don't think anything outside of that question (of re-evaluation as a WG item) is before us. -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Attachment:
pgpjUm40BxCw4.pgp
Description: PGP signature