Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts

Stephen Farrell <> Sun, 16 December 2012 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC40D21F89C6 for <>; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:49:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BzvjSwagz2Nt for <>; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:49:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B2E921F88C8 for <>; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:49:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBC5BE2F; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:49:23 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ROULkhQE0eUN; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:49:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 059A5BE29; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:49:23 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:49:22 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <>, Keith Moore <>
Subject: Re: The notion of "fast tracking" drafts
References: <> <> <> <> <836340163076CC86CACF70FB@[]>
In-Reply-To: <836340163076CC86CACF70FB@[]>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:49:48 -0000

John, Keith,

I really have to say that you both seem to be talking about
things that have nothing whatsoever to do with my proposal.

ISTM that you are of the opinion that anything the IETF
does to go faster is bad in and of itself because its
scary. This also seems to me to be an example of the kind
of process discussion wandering onto everyone's favourite
hobby horse that I mentioned before.

So I don't see any change to the draft is required, but
if you do have a direct comment on the draft, that'd be
welcome and I'd be very happy to get such comments. Or
perhaps I'm missing something that is relevant to my
draft, but if so, I don't see it, so you need to bring
your concerns down to issues with the draft if you are
making a specific comment rather than being generally


On 12/16/2012 08:49 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Sunday, December 16, 2012 15:08 -0500 Keith Moore
> <> wrote:
>> to this I'd add
>> (5) Widespread, examined belief that the specification has
>> minimal impact on the Internet architecture.
>> I keep seeing IETF standardize protocols that seem likely to
>> have seriously damaging architectural impact without much, if
>> any, examination of that impact (the PCP and MIF work come
>> most immediately to mind, but I could cite several others
>> given a few minutes to think about it).  I'd hate to see a
>> fast-tracking procedure used as a way to further circumvent
>> such examination.
> I think I would have said "impact on the Internet architecture
> is well-understood and judged to be acceptable" instead, but we
> agree about the general principle.
>    john