Re: Selection Process

Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com> Thu, 26 November 1992 10:25 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00995; 26 Nov 92 5:25 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00984; 26 Nov 92 5:25 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04738; 26 Nov 92 5:26 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00974; 26 Nov 92 5:25 EST
Received: from ics.uci.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04725; 26 Nov 92 5:25 EST
Received: from nma.com by q2.ics.uci.edu id ac05264; 26 Nov 92 2:14 PST
Received: from localhost by odin.nma.com id aa11179; 26 Nov 92 0:26 PST
To: poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Selection Process
In-reply-to: Your message of 25 Nov 1992 18:29:49 -0400. <01GRKTSHBKSO96WDY8@utkvx.utk.edu>
Reply-to: Stef=poised@nma.com
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1992 00:26:10 -0800
Message-ID: <11177.722766370@nma.com>
X-Orig-Sender: stef@nma.com

I was planning to seriously propose that the RECALL arrangement be
abandoned in that it is complex to define and very likely to never be
needed.  Somewhere recently I saw "Don't write rules for cases that
very rarely happen"... or something like that.  This is one of those.

But, if we can leave it as discussed in ...

	11/25 16:47EST Bob Stewart        Re: Selection Process<<
	11/25 17:27EST John C Klensin     Re: Selection Process<<
	11/25 18:29-04 CASE@utkvx.utcc.u  Re: Selection Process<<
	11/25 22:14EST Theodore Ts'o      Re: Selection Process<<

where is hard to instantiate, and timed so as to take the better part
of a year to complete, I so no harm in keeping it.

But, we should also not spend a lot more time defining it either.

If we cannot quickly stabilize on the scheme, we should junk it.

Beyond this observation, I find that the entire POISED outcome has met
all my objectives and requirements.

I expect some tuning to continue for a while.

Cheers...\Stef