> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter > > These communities may not even be SDOs - they can be operator > > consortia, > > vendor consortia, industry consortia, or Lord knows what. > > Ah, but those we can simply treat as individual > contributions, because there is no reason to do otherwise. For the cases where there is a major infrastructure change that needs to be achieved I would like to see a more interactive process. At present the development model is a bunch of boffins go out into a shed, build something and then ask the customer if they like it. This process has not really worked for IPv6 or DNSSEC and I don't think it is likely to work for BGPSecurity either. One problem here is that there is no way that any shed is ever going to be big enough to fit in all the parties that might have a stake in the outcome. Rather than treating the inputs from other organizations as individual contributions I would like to see groups that have major infrastructure change have a process available for formally soliciting input from the various consortia where the stakeholders whose participation is essential tend to meet. As with any focus group there can never be an expectation that the eventual solution will meet all of the requirements, but even if it does not people prefer to be asked than ignored. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf