No disagreement on any of this. I was just responding to what I took to be suggestions that in-flight partial evaluation was inappropriate.
john --On Saturday, 18 December, 2004 04:23 -0500 Scott W Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 11:47:10AM -0500, John C Klensin > allegedly wrote: >> Harald, while I agree in principle, I would suggest that some >> of the comments Eric, Bill, and others have pointed out call >> for the beginnings of an evaluation of your experiment. I >> further suggest that evaluation is appropriate at almost any >> time, once data start to come in. > > I hope it can be a relatively sloppy process. Let's not > insist on perfection. An RFC is identified as possibly > outdated, the suggestion is posted, and people respond -- just > as is happening now. Sometimes the suggestions are wrong. > The experiment is going fine as long as you realize it's an > experiment in process as much as discovering how much cleaning > is possible. > >> My recent response to Pekka's analysis >> of the CIDR documents is one suggestion about where such an >> evaluation might lead. And, of course, this whole firestorm >> of discussion on the IETF list, while a welcome distraction >> from hairsplitting debates about administrative structures, >> adds strength to the position of those who argued in newtrk >> that this effort might not be worth the >> amount of community energy it would take up. > > Yup. The jury is still out on whether it's worthwhile. Let's > be forgiving of the first attempt, and let it run for a little > longer and see if it becomes more polished. > > Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
