On 26 Jul 2014, at 7:28 am, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
Paul:
I have several small concerns, but I am _very_ worried about one sentence. I want to raise that first. Maybe that resolution will sort my smaller concerns too.
I am troubled by the statement, “Where possible and appropriate,distinct alternative options should be identified”. I don't want the ICG discussing alternatives. I am certain that we do not want the ICG accepting or rejecting alternatives.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your intent.
Well, my intent was to recognise that there may be various options involved in coming to a conclusion, and if so, these alternatives should be supplied by the communities, not invented by the ICG. If we invite singular and non-negotiable proposals from the communities, we might find ourselves without a single workable solution; so my thought was that if alternatives are available which are satisfactory to the communities concerned, then these should be spelt out so that the ICG can find a better final solution. This would indeed involve making judgements and accepting/rejecting alternatives, but I didn’t see those things ruled out by the Charter (item iii). Paul.
Russ
On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:03 AM, Paul Wilson wrote:
Thanks to comments from a few of you, here’s a further draft of the RFP.
My feeling is that a very structured approach is needed, and I hope that we can gather all the needed information in this way. From the IP addressing community, I think we could provide a detailed and complete response in this format, but other will need to be able to do so too.
I hope this is useful.
Paul.
<Proposal Requirements v5.docx>