On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:15:46 +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: > You make an assumption here that there is some relationship between the > usefulness of a standard done from a working group and those individual > submissions. Actually, i was not intending to indicate such a relationship, nor do i believe it exists. Good and lousy work come from both sources... I was indicating that the IETF standardization requires indication of community support. We take the working group record as strong input to that indication, but that individual submissions lack any equivalent record. I am intrigued that IESG leadership apparently feels it acceptable to take the activity of random mailing lists, that have no IETF process standing and no IETF oversight, as sufficient indication of community support. Ultimately, taking such input as sufficient calls to question the need for ever forming a working group. But, then, even for established working groups, we seem to be ready to standardize things that show active support by literally only a few people. If there were a recent track record of successful, widespread, large-scale adoption for IETF standards, then that sort of random, subjective, opaque assessment process might be acceptable. Alas, there isn't, so it isn't. On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:54:39 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > Dave, I think that the requirements for a successful last call depend > on how much review and interest have been demonstrated before the last > call. To repeat my response to John K: > My comments were in response to an explicit statement that "the community > doesn't care much" and my comments included the statement "A standards > process is primarily about gaining community support for a common way of > doing something." > > Thanks for noticing that there is a difference between having no > indication of community support, versus "there are a number of people who > see a need for it". On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:06:40 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: > suggest that we try to include pointers to these discussions in > the Last Call text, so that the community has the transparency it needs > to assess these previous discussions. ahh, now. that certainly seems like a good idea, however, one needs to be careful that this does not turn into statements like "there are x years of discussion on the foo mailing list; go read it all". ultimately, that's not very helpful for making an assessment. On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:52:36 -0700 (MST), Vernon Schryver wrote: > Instead of a "default no" for BCPs or standards track RFC from individual > submissions, it would be better to make it a simple "no." If the IETF > does not feel like investing the substantial effort and delays to form > a WG and the rest of the tiresome, formal IETF dance, then that in > itself is proof that the issue is unworthy of the IETF's official seal I do not agree with this recommendation. I think individual submissions are a good alternative in some cases. However I think Vernon's posting does point to a very good set of questions. Namely, what is the purpose of IETF standardization, as distinct from IETF specification development? What is the incremental value of that going through IETF-wide approval? Here are my own answers: 1. There is an independent technical community assessment of efficacy and safety for the specification 2. The is hand-off of the specification's "ownership" to the IETF. I see these both as extremely valuable. The question that follows is whether we are conducting the IETF individual submission process that ensures a reality for both of these? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf