The MPLS WG Archive

[Eric Gray <ewgray@mindspring.com>]

Ben,

    Please read embedded comments.

You wrote:

> I was under the impression that the purpose of the IETF was to
> engineer, not simply to generate documentation.

Whether you meant it this way or not, this is essentially a
two-pronged attack which falls apart fairly easily.  You seem
to be arguing that my desire to leave the document as is will
somehow "generate documentation".  On the other hand, your
argument to re-organize several MPLS base drafts for the
purpose of  moving IPv4 specifics (presumably without any
substantive changes to the contents) is somehow exclusively
a good engineering exercise.

I disagree on both points for what, IMHO, are obvious
reasons.

> The date is irrelevant if there is a problem with a specification.

No, the date is not irrelevant.

Progress is accomplished by achieving results, however imperfect
they might be, and moving on to the next problem.  Progress is
not attained as a result of an endless search for the perfect goal.

If you see a problem with a specification, I suggest that you write
a separate specification to address it.  This is under the heading
of "moving on to the next problem".  IF, in attempting to write a
new specification, you uncover reasons why the existing one will
not be useful to anyone, THEN it is likely that the existing one
will be discarded in favor of a new, improved version.

I do not think the reasons stated so far are sufficient to justify
such a course of action.  I believe there is abundant evidence that
the existing specifications are useful to someone.

>
> What you consider merely aesthetic, others consider fundamental
> to good protocol design.

:-)

If you uncover a useful book on protocol design principles,
one of them will be something along the lines of "strive always
for completion, rather than perfection".  Unfinished but nearly
perfect protocols are less useful than imperfect, but working,
protocols.

>
>
> Ben
>