On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 03:24:08PM +0200, Niels ten Oever wrote: > We cannot simply wish political implications of our work away.
Right, but I don't believe the HRPC work has suggested that things that have HR implications should _not be done_. They should be noted, and I'm all in favour of that. What you are arguing, however, is in line with the way the IETF ended up doing the BEHAVE WG: we wouldn't agree to consider NAT when it was first being worked on, so everyone did it their own way. Then we had 30 million different ways to achieve the same result, none of which worked with anything else, so we had to come up with a bunch of well-defined work arounds to get things to function together. It's not obvious that is an improvement. I think it would be quite good for the document to note that it has the implications you are pointing to, which might be a reason for people not to embrace it. The downsides should be noted. But to me, if I have to weigh "undesirable political implications in an interoperable way, which might draw attention and increase the possibility of implementation" against "undesirable political implications in proprietary ways", I'm going to pick the former every time. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
