At 4/22/2003:09:56 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote: Hi Spencer, Yes, you are right that inviting people to "develop clue" before involving the IESG would be more scalable (or at least it would reduce the workload in terms of submitted documents! :-). But I am doubtful about the results of such an approach in terms of near-term quality and productivity (e.g., "re-work" by some reviewing body). My own initial view was that *review* (and possible revision) of such an "Architecture Considerations" section should be done by the IAB. I realize that suggestion might be impractical from organizational and/or procedural aspects that I am unfamiliar with or have not fully considered. But I was expecting we'd need more "top down" control in this area...at least in the beginning. Speaking as a member of the hoi polloi, I am often dismayed at how much I *don't* know about Internet- wide architecture (e.g., mobile IP implications, internationalization considerations, multi-media transfer protocols, etc.) when thinking about the *few* things I do understand a bit. :-( On the positive side, I comfort myself with the thought that no *one* person knows it all...and am thankful that groups like the IAB and IESG are out there to protect the 'net from me! :-) Cheers, BobN >Just one follow-on here - I'm seeing postings from others that >seem to imply that we need IESG review because that's where the >clue is, while Dave is pointing out that the IESG isn't the only >source of Internet architecture clue. > >As I read Dave's note, this suggestion is an invitation for >people to develop clue before involving IESG folk, rather than >another black hole to absorb IESG time and effort (no matter how >noble the effort)... > >Better for scaling, no? > >SPencer > >--- Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote: >> >> BN> -- might be a bit too optimistic...I don't think it goes >> BN> quite far enough in noting that it will probably take >> BN> review by members of the small cadre of IETF architecture >> BN> experts to be sure that all relevant requirements and >> >> that's fine. the point of the exercise is to require >> specification >> authors to pay significant attention to the question. this >> actively >> creates a dialogue on the issues, rather than hoping that some >> clever >> architect notices this particular document. > >_______________________________________________ >This message was passed through ietf_censored@carmen.ipv6.cselt.it, which is a sublist of ietf@ietf.org. Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.