[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP

Perhaps "mostly harmless" then?

Note that we are having this discussion now as a result of a previous discussion concerning the suitability of the Ecrit solution for any type of public IP access. Those contending that the solution is suitable are (by and large) the ones now objecting to including the statement although they were not objecting just over 5 weeks ago when the statement was introduced as a means of settling the first discussion. Those contending that the solution is not universally suitable are (as far as I am aware) prepared to drop that issue (at least as regards having the solution go through last call) if the statement is included.

If the statement is in the end removed, we may find ourselves back again to the first discussion. If that happens, I will consider the solution fair game for some more specific and detailed criticism than has so far been provided - since after all, any solution that claims universal applicability is setting itself up as rather large and inviting target.

Kind Regards

Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom at andrew.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 5:33 PM
To: Gellens, Randall; Spencer Dawkins; Hardie, Ted; Dawson, Martin; Edge, Stephen; BernardAboba; Thomson, Martin; ecrit at ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP

There was no consensus to add the text, whether the wording is a
compromise is irrelevant at this stage. It was added without consensus
and needs to be removed.

Cheers
James


-----Original Message-----
From: Randall Gellens [mailto:randy at qualcomm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, 5 May 2009 10:29 AM
To: Winterbottom, James; Spencer Dawkins; Ted Hardie; Dawson, Martin;
Edge,Stephen; BernardAboba; Thomson, Martin; ecrit at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP

At 7:16 PM -0500 5/4/09, James Winterbottom wrote:

>  Under the same reasoning Randy, since there was never consensus in
the
>  WG to add it,

There may not have been a formal consensus call, but there was 
significant discussion on the list, and my impression was that we had 
general agreement to add it.

>   it should never have been added, and since no real
>  justification for its inclusion has been provided,

There has been much justification with detailed reasoning for adding it.

>   we should revert back
>  to the previous version of the document and proceed to last call the
>  document.

It was added as a compromise based on the discussion in SFO and on 
the list subsequently.  It's a compromise, like much of the text we 
publish.


>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On
Behalf
>  Of Randall Gellens
>  Sent: Tuesday, 5 May 2009 8:26 AM
>  To: Spencer Dawkins; Ted Hardie; Dawson, Martin; Edge,Stephen;
>  BernardAboba; Thomson, Martin; ecrit at ietf.org; RandallGellens
>  Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
>
>  At 5:00 PM -0500 5/4/09, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
>>>   The statement added in -09 is a compromise; even the most fervent
>>>  argument against it comes down to "it isn't needed".  Given the
>>>  choice between a compromise statement that clearly does no harm,
>>>  and, depending on one's viewpoint is either vitally needed or
>>>  redundant, it seem clear that we should progress the document with
>>>  the text in it.
>>
>>   I'm having a difficult time thinking of "clearly does no harm" as
>>  sufficient justification for including text in a document that's
>>  still tagged as a BCP...
>
>  I never said "clearly does no harm" is *sufficient* justification for
>  adding it, rather, it's justification for not removing it given the
>  arguments for it.  There are a number of people who have made
>  well-reasoned and detailed cases for why this text is needed; since
>  it is already a compromise that does no harm, the choice to leave it
>  in seems clear.
>
>  --
>  Randall Gellens
>  Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself
only
>  -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
>  Procedures!  Of course, that's what you'd use with a *sophisticated*
>  machine like this.  Procedures.    --'Ceaser Smith' in _Hot_Millions_
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ecrit mailing list
>  Ecrit at ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
>  This message is for the designated recipient only and may
>  contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. 
>  If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
>  immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
>  this email is prohibited.
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
>  [mf2]
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ecrit mailing list
>  Ecrit at ietf.org
>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit


-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
I have made it a rule, whenever in my power, to avoid becoming the
draughtsman of papers to be reviewed by a public body.
              --Benjamin Franklin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]