Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-05

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Thu, 12 Feb 2015 02:16:28 +0000,
Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> 2. if the sense of the wg has changed and they now don't see the need
> >>   for explaining why we need it beyond the very high level view like
> >>   the you showed above, just remove Section 7 and move forward.  As I
> >>   said in my previous response, I personally don't like this option,
> >>   but if that's the new consensus of the wg I'm willing to accept it.
> >
> >Thanks, this would be my preference.
>
> Separating the use cases could make us more focus on the solution and protocol procedures. We could always come back in the future to summarize the use cases in the practice. Maybe, the industry or market could develop more cases than we can clearly describe for now.

To be clear: my current position is still against this option.  I'm
always in the camp of "problem first, then solution".  And that's
also the case of this document since around May 2014:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg15520.html

Trying to publish a random idea in a (pretty) formal document like RFC
just because someone thinks it may be useful someday looks to me like
throwing random spaghetti to the wall with the wish that someone may
consider it a fine art.  Maybe that's how "innovations" work, and I
may be in the minority.  But at least around last May our consensus
should have been against that approach, hence the current organization
of the draft.  Just because it triggers a hot discussion doesn't
automatically dismiss the original concern and justify ignoring it.

Unless and until we see a clear wg consensus that we now allow it to
ship even if no one can explain what kind of problem it will solve, I
object to moving forward with just removing this section.  And, IMO,
this consensus change will require another round of WGLC.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya