[saag] Re: on derivative work rights statements in emails to Security Area mailing lists

On 22/11/25 00:44, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:>>
>> However, that's not my understannding of how things are supposed to work:
>> IETF RFCs represent IETF consensus. And if something is known and understood
>> to be a bad idea, I do think that the IETF shouldn't work on that. If
>> anything, it's better that such work is carried out elsewhere, rather than
>> having bad ideas rubber-stamped by the IETF "because they would otherwise be
>> pursued elsewhere, anyway".
> 
> If the IETF writes the RFC, we can put an applicability statement on it
> with prominent warnings that it's a bad idea outside of a certain
> situation.  I'm willing to believe that there are some cases (not all)
> where having control over that warning statement provides value to
> outweigh the cost of appearing to give the bad idea IETF imprimateur.

I strongly disagree. What you seem to be suggesting is that any idea 
that is believe to be pursued here or there should be published as an RFC.

Having known-to-be-bad ideas be pursued simply because "they would 
otherwise be pursued elsewhere" seems bad on so many different fronts:

* I believe it affects the credibility of other RFCs.

* Wastes the resources of the IETF community, because now the community 
needs to waste time on known-to-be-bad ideas.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email protected]
PGP Fingerprint: 7F7F 686D 8AC9 3319 EEAD C1C8 D1D5 4B94 E301 6F01

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]