harald@alvestrand.no (Harald Tveit Alvestrand) writes:
> ... nobody else rose up to refute him there on this issue.
ok, i'll bite.
> > My spam filters decided to put it in the junk. But it neatly
> > illustrates the issue we have when the I* tries to look at the big
> > picture, and a special interest group looks only at its own small area
> > - there is a genuine conflict of interest, and the IETF and its
> > processes are set up to favour the big picture. That is not a problem
> > IMHO. It's exactly correct, except that we have to explain it better to
> > the special interest groups.
if the ietf could have goals, and one of them was to become dilute and
ineffectual, then the words "exactly right" above are, well, exactly right.
(priority focus on the big picture used to be more exactly right than it
is today, since the big picture in 1989 had fewer moving parts than today.)
so, i don't know if i'm refuting him exactly, but i do surely disagree.
it's only "not a problem" if someone takes a nondilute "bite sized" ("useful")
view of cross-special groups. otherwise we'll have the special groups
in heads-down sandbox mode, doing work with no architectural connection to
their brothers and sisters in the next sandbox over, while the general
interest groups are trying to move continents but getting no traction. (oops.)
--
Paul Vixie