Stewart, Of course it is. I think virtually everyone would like to live in a perfect world and most of us recognize that this is not it. Therefore, it is clear that - whatever we might say in any particular argument - we all want things to get better. Consequently, proposals to change "what is" will always be a recurring event. The question we really have to ask - as dissected by Brian in some detail - is whether or not a specific proposal is enough "better" than what we have already (assuming that what we have already is both under- stood and used appropriately) to overcome the "steady-state friction" typically used to prevent change for the sake of marginal gain with an unquantifiable risk for unanticipated side effects. -- Eric
________________________________ From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:22 PM To: Eliot Lear Cc: Gray, Eric; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves] Eliot Lear wrote: I agree. As usual we seem to be stuck in an infinite loop on this mailing list with the cycle being somewhere between 6 months and 3 years. The fact that we keep coming back to this topic may be a message in itself! - Stewart Eliot Gray, Eric wrote: Brian, I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into trouble is when different sets of people disagree as to which of the steps we are currently working on. Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm "none." This is - IMO - the basis for the apparent stodgy resistance to change. -- Eric --> -----Original Message----- --> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter --> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:36 AM --> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand --> Cc: ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: --> Consensus based on reading tea leaves] --> --> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --> > --> > --> > --On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein --> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --> > --> >> The only thing I am sure about is --> >> that --> >> consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly --> as it is. --> > --> > --> > I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus. --> > --> > I do, however, see a rather strong --> consensus-of-the-speakers against --> > using MS-Word document format for anything "official". --> --> I think we need to tackle this whole issue, if we do decide to --> tackle it, in a much more systematic way. --> --> - what are our functional requirements? --> - which of them are not met today? --> - what are the possible solutions, and what is their practical --> and operational cost? --> - which, if any, solutions should we adopt, on what timescale? --> --> I believe that if we took a systematic approach like that, the issue --> of how we determine consensus would be broken into enough small --> steps that it really wouldn't be an issue. --> --> Brian --> --> --> _______________________________________________ --> Ietf mailing list --> Ietf@ietf.org --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf