Re: [art] Call for Consensus: Re: On BCP 190

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:30 -0500 Ben Campbell
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Commenting on just one point (I am agnostic on the others):
> 
>> On Aug 20, 2019, at 5:55 AM, John C Klensin
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> Happy to wait, but a few comments going forward:
>> 
>> * For Adam, there is some question in my mind about whether it
>> is desirable to clear a Discuss based on a plan about a
>> document that has not been written yet, that has no firm
>> schedule, etc.
> 
> In this case, I think Adam is saying that we don't have
> consensus that the draft in question is really wrong.
> 
> It could take months to years to figure out what we really
> want BCP190 to say. I agree with Adam that we should not hold
> current work hostage to that. Holding up work due to
> non-critical externalities is a very good way to kill momentum.
> 
> […]

Then we are very much in agreement.  A different way of
expressing the concern about protocol-restricting documents that
are treated as requirements is that other work gets held up
while we try to converge on protocol models, philosophy of
protocols, or other externalities that become critical only if
we make them critical... and doing that is generally a bad idea.
Holding up work that way not only kills momentum, but may cause
critical people to simply give up and go away while others
debate the angel population of the heads of various pins.

best,
    john