Re: On filibusters as a mode of technical discussion

[Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie>]

On 24/03/2010 09:48, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> if i may, if this draft was commissioned (by whom?) then it seems
> prudent to also have a draft to descrbe a simple, stateful
> default-accept firewall if only to provide a balanced choice. Otherwise
> we (the IETF) end up with only a single choice defined and after all, if
> there is only a single choice, what choice is there?

On this basis, could I suggest you rewrite the entire body of RFCs to
include balanced choices where relevant?  E.g. we could have a BGP which by
default wouldn't exchange any prefixes unless the
PLEASE_EXCHANGE_PREFIXES_NO_REALLY capability was negotiated.  Or we have a
TCP protocol which gave the option of not being able to transfer any data
whatever (hey, don't criticise those people who don't want to transfer data
- they have a legitimate point).  We could have an MPLS which came with the
default option of forwarding tags to random next-hops, and a DNS
specification which defaulted to answering NXDOMAIN to everything.  All
balanced choices, and all as useful as providing a recommendation for
default-accept stateful CPE firewalls.

Folks, can we apply the slightest shred of common sense to this discussion?

Nick