Hi Robert,
Your comments have already been addressed, most recently in Pete’s message on Monday ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NAa6PvOvdPy8SmYtX1IxQ1Jj-pc/). To add,
relative to your final paragraph about “hold responsible", there are many parts of our process that rely in part on the expectation participants will act in good faith, this would hardly be the first.
—John
On May 23, 2024, at 11:52 AM, Robert Raszuk <robert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The reality in vast majority of companies (vendors) is that commitment to implement something or not are no longer being driven by engineers.
They are driven by marketing and product management teams who rarely attend IETFs.
And even if there some commitment today tomorrow based on new field requirements it may change.
With that I am really puzzled what this entire discussion is all about and how anyone (presumably chairs) are going to hold responsible person X for her or his "commitment to implement" (unless we are talking about hobby implementations in some private
code base or open source.
Thx,
R.
On 5/21/2024 9:48 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Before diving into this thread, I think it's important to underscore
> that we're not taking anything away here.
The premise of that assertion is that having this working group will not
alter the decision-making by those managing the other paths. Given
human nature, that seems optimistic, at best.
> The only constraint being established is: If you want this particular
> working group to process your work, there's a specific minimum you
> need to meet.
And that minimum is both onerous and, as formal charter requirements,
lacking any historical precedence in the IETF.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social
|
