On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Yoav Nir <y...@checkpoint.com> wrote: <snip> > I think that an endorsement like "I work for Cisco and we intend to implement > this in every one of our products" is useful. But it's not nearly as useful > as "this is a terrible idea, and doing this will prevent IPv6 from ever > gaining traction". The objections raised in last call are really the point, > not the endorsements.
Think I've read somewhere that the ground of good engineering (the E in IETF) are being able to argue against your own idea, search and look for flaws in it, and all in the name of testing it to see how it can be made even better, is it good enough? Or simple to consider the bigger picture, can my idea hurt the rest no matter how good it is? There are great and very good ideas out there that isolated are fantastic, but considered in just a bit bigger picture are horrible, they've ruin everything around them. So, when lots of people are all for something without mention or willing to discusse the bad sides... that's scary as I see it. -- Roger Jorgensen | rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
