Re: #1416

["Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Charles Lindsey wrote:

> Russ's vote for IR is cancelled out by my vote for IC

My enthusiasm for voting in technical questions is limited.

Harald noted elsewhere that the idea of humming is to find
rough consensus or its absence without counting.  Here with
the very limited participation it is anyway not compelling.

But I do think that the Injection-Date in the approved RFC
represents a *possible* and plausible concept.  Overruling
that older IETF consensus because the concept is actually
not as possible as the WG hoped after years of discussions
is IMO a bad idea, and nobody is going to modify this older
decision anytime soon, let alone in the next nineteen days.

Even if Injection-Date as intended turns out to be wishful
thinking in practice.  There is an "official" procedure to
remove features from standards:  This can be done when the
future implementation and interop reports for a promotion
on "standards track" show that this feature didn't get the
traction justifying to keep it as intended.

IMO usefor-usepro should reflect the usefor-usefor design,
and not try a roll-back.  After some time - not less than
six months, but likely years, if at all - folks with the
energy to promote these two documents to "draft standard"
can fix whatever needs fixing (*1).  

What is most important now is to get a "consistent story"
out (as RFCs with numbers, not rotting in an editor queue)
before the WG is terminated in about 19*24 hours.

 Frank
-- 
*1: There will be fixes, if anybody tries to promote the
    documents, e.g., a simplified <top-label> TBD "soon",
    and the simplified <msg-id-core> of 2822upd as "soon"
    as 2822upd can be approved and published.