At Thu, 24 Jun 2004 07:50:44 -0700, David Meyer wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 03:10:29PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> >> ...
> >> However, are there any possibility that the ID become an RFC?
> >> 
> >> I think it does not have to be.
> 
>       Seems to me that we should publish it as informational to
>       capture the work that has been done. In any event, we
>       should adhere to the publication standards.

Disclaimer: our area directors asked the WG to take this approach as a
way of wrapping up our work on this topic, and they can of course
speak for themselves.  The following is just my opinion based on my
understanding of their thinking.

I'm pretty sure that a large part of the point of the exercise is to
publish the document in permanent form.  We were not able to reach
consensus on a way forward, so we're trying to write down what we've
learned about each of the several options during the course of years
of nonterminating discussion, as fairly as possible given that we
don't have consensus on the right approach.

A well-written document of this type serves at least two purposes:

a) It's a briefing document for anybody (eg, the IESG) who might need
   to make informed decisions in this space at some time in the
   future.

b) It offers a relatively constructive way of breaking out of the
   endless discussion loop, by providing a relatively objective
   criterion by which we (or somebody) can determine whether a new
   discussion on this topic is genuinely new or is just the same old
   nonterminating discussion yet again.  In the latter case, a good
   document will at least allow us (or somebody) to cut to the chase
   and ask whether anything has changed since the last time around,
   rather than having to reevolve the whole line of argument, bring a
   new group of participants up to speed, and so forth.

One way of looking at this is that, when an argument can't be resolved
and the participants need to resign themselves to agreeing to
disagree, it is sometimes useful to spell out in some detail precisely
what it is on which they have agreed to disagree. :)
.
dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

Reply via email to