On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 6:11 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@irif.fr> wrote:
> Removing the IESG from CC. > > > I propose you start mentioning what you believe are unspecified gaps > > that could lead to interoperability issues. > > With all due respect, Daniel, I'm a little surprised by this development. > In this WG, we did spend a lot of effort ensuring that all of our > specifications have at least two independent implementations. This > allowed us to claim with assurance that our protocols are not only > implementable, but actually described clearly enough to allow independent > reimplementation. (Which didn't prevent a small minority of IESG members > from blocking progress for months, but that's a different story, and one > that's well documented in RFC 3774.) > > From your mail, it would appear that the burden of proof has changed > sides: it is apparently no longer the people who propose a protocol who > need to prove that it is implementable, but the people who have tried but > failed to understand how to implement a draft who need to prove that the > draft is incoplete. > > The purpose of a discussion is to try to understand what the other means. This is what we are trying to do. > When did that happen? > > -- Juliusz > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
