[rfc-i] Some questions on the model and the motivations

Olaf Kolkman olaf at NLnetLabs.nl
Fri Jan 7 04:56:05 PST 2011


On Jan 7, 2011, at 3:34 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> Olaf,
> 
> Thanks for the followup.
> 
> Let me preface by saying that I fully believe everyone involved in this topic wants it to go well, not the least counting you.  So the criticisms I've been offering -- and, alas, that continue below -- are about our community performance, not about community or personal intent.
> 

Dave,

[...]

> 
> 
>> Maybe I should have asked the question slightly different: Have you
>> considered to redistributing the responsibilities that you identified are
>> needed for Series Continuity in different ways? What were the trade-offs that
>> made you choose for staying close to the  model of 4 legs from RFC5620?
> 
> I know this will sound harsh, but as you offer it, that seems a random question, one of many possible ones.  Rather than being dropped into the middle of an already-confused public discussion, it needs to include careful motivation and your own discussion of the reason it appears to be reasonable, desirable, etc.

It starts with a very simple premise that can be answered very briefly: "No I have not considered that."  or "Yes I considered X and did away with it because of Y". 

That (to me) is a very informative and explicit answer that helps us focus. But I guess your prediction of milage varies.


--Olaf


________________________________________________________ 

Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                       Science Park 140, 
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20110107/ba3da3b9/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list