Re: [Int-area] Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Thu, 30 March 2017 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63461129841 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y24hsHHldAWo for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E7AE1297E1 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 226EF31C7D; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:26:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by godin (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7D5AEEC0B1C; Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:24:33 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:24:33 -0500
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Cc: int-area@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20170330162433.GB6683@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <AM4PR0401MB2241D42F2FDC359193FD6B80BD340@AM4PR0401MB2241.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <9c0d9f36-7a07-f9a0-c8b9-75ea5bcb7cf2@kit.edu> <20170330160129.GA5508@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <a42f8fdb-1794-d818-00c6-4d57282d47e7@isi.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a42f8fdb-1794-d818-00c6-4d57282d47e7@isi.edu>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Ubuntu 16.04 (xenial)
X-Charlie: Je suis Charlie
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/Krh0hxXh7avfPAeCpNaONoxCgds>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Continuing IPv10 I-D discussion.
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:26:33 -0000

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:11:56AM -0700,
 Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote 
 a message of 58 lines which said:

> The IETF is a place that lets a thousand flowers bloom, but has
> historically been less adept at pruning.
> 
> A good garden requires both

Yes, but there is a big assymetry: writing a good proposal is hard,
and takes time, while writing stupid things can be done at
high-rate. If we allow everything, we'll have more bad proposals than
good.