Timeout Request: Was: Resignation request

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

It is not at all unusual for drafts to change AFTER WG consensus has been
reached. The question is whether the changes are within the spirit of what
there is consensus for. So the mere fact that a draft was revised just
before consensus being declared is not in itself evidence of perfidy or a
cause for calling for anyone's resignation.

I am getting rather fed up of the way in which this is being discussed. I
understand that people have deep seated ideological beliefs regarding the
sanctity of what they imagine the Internet architecture to be. But making
public demands for people to resign is not the way to address that.

I also note that the outcome of the architecture discussion I attempted to
provoke was the IP packet purists stating 'you can have your opinion on
architecture but others are entitled to disagree'.

Well hello, that was precisely the point I was making. You cannot preach
'permissionless innovation' and then insist on a single architectural view
being correct. I do not insist that my model is the only correct one, but I
do have at least part of a model that describes the Internet as it is today
and I am not aware of anyone else in the argument having attempted that.

Demanding resignations over disagreements over sacred texts that are not
even written down seems an unreasonable way to behave and I think folk need
to stop it.


For those of you who are interested, this is where I got on the model to
date. As you will note, I explain why layered models do not work and why
the OSI model in particular is unhelpful. But the principles of
encapsulation are still important and we need to understand what the
interfaces between the layers are. And this is especially true for projects
like DNS Discovery and QUIC where we would wish to change those layers.

http://defaultdenysecurity.com/Professional/Architecture/