On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Andrew Sullivan <a...@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 07:29:34AM -0400, Lee Howard wrote: >> I’m sorry to disagree with you. A bad idea should not be allocated >> resources; it should be quashed. > > My proposal is to quash it by giving it its own rock under which it > can be hidden. Right now, it is being allocated resources anyway: the > time and attention of everyone on this list who would like to pay > attention to less-absurd proposals than "reformat and reinstall the > Internet". There is no evidence that that proposal, which has now > been discussed for a long time and the disadvantages of which have > been amply demonstrated to everyone except the proposal's proponent, > is going to go away any time soon. Compared to the resources that are > currently being wasted on it, a list seems a small price to pay. > Andrew,
Why not follow the normal process of any other proposal brought before IETF? If you look at the beginning of this thread, most of the discussion was the result of a specific and quite relevant question to the author raised by the AD (Suresh). The author responded to the question and then several in community responded mostly questioning the validity of the assumptions in the response. I would assume the next step is for the AD to make the determination whether there is enough consensus to continue any discussion about the proposal either on this list or as a separate mailing list. Thanks, Tom _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
