Re: [Lake] WG process beyond requirements

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

Thanks. I get the frustration that people working on this
for some time may have experienced, and do want to avoid
making that worse.

That said, I do wonder about this bit:

On 24/01/2020 18:58, Göran Selander wrote:
> How about everyone that wants to propose a candidate solution gets a
> slot in Vancouver to present a) how the protocol complies with
> draft-ietf-lake-req b) the message sizes using
> draft-ietf-lwig-security-protocol-comparison as a basis for
> comparison
Of course if that's what everyone wanted, that'd what we'd
do, but:

- I'd be pleasantly surprised if we're done with WGLC on
the requirements before Vancouver - if everyone finishes
the actions promised and closes issues really quickly,
and if nobody finds any new issues during WGLC, we might,
but that seems a little optimistic

- But more importantly, your suggestion above seems a bit
too much like asking for a competition in March - my guess
is that that could be counterproductive in that it'd be
likely to cause the set of WG participants to split into
groups supporting one proposal or another and make those
groups antagonistic towards each others' proposals.

So, I'd hope we can find something that works, doesn't
slow us down, but maintains the spirit of co-operation
we've seen so far in the WG.

Cheers,
S.