At 12:39 PM -0800 1/29/09, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>That's OK, as long as there is space for the counter-argument,
>which goes "this is going to happen anyway, so we need to
>write a spec that minimizes the damage."
I hope the argument actually says: "Here are the requirements
which we need met, and this is why this approach satisfies them."
That allows you to have the discussion of whether exploring
other approaches which satisfy the same need (and may have
different trade-offs) is in or out of scope. Starting with
"this is going to happen anyway" will leave that discussion
popping up in the corners throughout the life of the WG.
> But those positions being
>stated, they shouldn't prevent the technical discussion. Personally,
>I think the existence of those two positions is well established
>and not very productive to spend time on. I agree with *both*
>of them, by the way.
If the BoF leaders can find a way to have the folks holding these
positions talk to each other rather than past each other, I will
count it a great success.
good luck,
Ted
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
