Re: On the difference between scenarios A and B in Carl's report

Carl Malamud <carl@media.org> Mon, 06 September 2004 20:32 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00314; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 16:32:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C4QDE-0004P0-5v; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:35:41 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C4Q4w-0000Wz-08; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:27:06 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C4Q3t-0000Oc-TE for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:26:02 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00038 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 16:25:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from bulk.resource.org ([192.101.98.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C4Q7B-0004JN-FP for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:29:26 -0400
Received: from bulk.resource.org (localhost.resource.org [127.0.0.1]) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id i86KP76Y012422; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from carl@localhost) by bulk.resource.org (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id i86KP6J6012421; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carl Malamud <carl@media.org>
Message-Id: <200409062025.i86KP6J6012421@bulk.resource.org>
In-Reply-To: <D861C55CC192D6F9BC2304DD@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 13:25:06 -0700
Organization: Memory Palace Press
X-Winch: Warn 9.5i
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL94 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: On the difference between scenarios A and B in Carl's report
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> 
> The thing that left me most uncomfortable with Scenario B as described was 
> that it presented a smorgasboard of options ("here are ten menu choices - 
> take your pick"), where some of them (the MoU) were totally obvious, and 
> some had (in my mind) severe disadvantages. So we can't say "we go for 
> scenario B" and have the discussion be finished, we have to be able to say 
> "Options 1, 3, 5 and 7 make sense, the rest does not, and besides, here's 
> option 17 that wasn't in the original document".
> 

There are 7 mechanisms listed, but in no way did I expect some substantial
number of them to be adopted.  Indeed, they are listed as straw-men and
I did not make a recommendation.  The idea was to illustrate a range of 
options and I left the hard part (deciding what to do) to the community to 
decide.  

Regards,

Carl

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf