Re: improving WG operation (was Re: Voting (again))

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jari Arkko wrote:
Hi Keith,

Keith, you have been advocating a model where the IETF would be stricter in allowing what work be taken up, in order to ensure that we can actually deliver. But I share the same opinion as John L that we should rather try to shape the IETF so that it can deliver what the world needs.



My primary criterion when arguing whether IETF should or should not take up a WG was always, in some sense, whether the Internet needed IETF to be involved in and supporting this effort. It involved both an assessment of how much harm would result from a botched design (in particular, a design that didn't respect the Internet environment and other protocols on the net), and of whether IETF could expend the resources necessary to manage the group and whether it could bring the necessary expertise to the table. It also involved an assessment of whether the proposed protocol would actually be of benefit to the Internet long-term.


All good criteria! I would probably add "assessment of whether lack of the protocol would be of
harm to the Internet long-term" (assuming the protocol falls within our scope, as you correctly
point out below). Here's an example: a protocol that is within IETF scope, but we suddenly
stop maintaining it to respond to changing requirements, or open it up to vendor extensions
without providing good abstractions that maintain interoperability.

This is very close to the IESG's thinking about what we should and shouldn't charter. The yardstick is RFC 3935. We can always make mistakes, of course, and we need to think about what work is being done by other organisations.

   Brian


_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]