Re: addr-arch next steps

[Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>]

Ok, here's the response I composed then chickened out on sending due
to possible role confusion.

At Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:15:01 -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
> 
> > thomas, i have been quiet this whole time.  but imiho
> >   o the document is poor quality
> >   o it is technically controversial
> >   o we know that pulling on the thread will unravel all sorts of
> >     social and technical manipulation that go back to 1994
> 
> Note also, that I'm not opposed to having a serious discussion on
> content. But logistically, that will be much much easier if the
> current ID is out as a PS. One of the big problems on this document
> over the last year has been the unwillingness to consider or discuss
> any changes (whether substantive or not) because the belief that the
> document was well past being "done". There is tremendous need to get a
> replacement for RFC 2373 published.
> 
> If we want a serious discussion of content, we need a good 6 months,
> at least.

I agree with what both Randy and Thomas are saying here.

FWIW, I think that quickly shipping the current draft as PS and then
having the serious discussion is probably the least bad approach.  The
IAB's response to the appeal was intended to allow this[*].  YMMV.

Reasoning, such as it is: 

1) Thomas's analysis of the WG matches my understanding, including the
   part about taking at least six months to do anything serious (even
   that seems optimistic, but hope springs eternal).

2) The code shipping today is based on the draft, not on 2327.

3) While both 2327 and the current draft could be seen as broken, it's
   probably less bad to have the PS match the shipping code than to
   have the PS and the code both broken but in different ways :).

4) Therefore, shipping the draft as PS seems like a useful thing that
   can be and should be done quickly, and that should not in any way
   be seen as preventing the serious discussion.

NB: The above are my own opinions, not the IAB's, except for [*],
    where I am stating my understanding of what the IAB said.
    As always, if there's any confusion, please ask, don't assume.