Eric, --- [SNIP --- --> IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on --> an idea. We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the --> idea will work. We produce lots of half-baked documents with --> little basis in working code. Then folks try implementing --> what's been spec'ed, find it doesn't work, but then find a ton --> of resistance to change, because the specs are three years old --> and "we don't want to break draft-mumble-05 implementations." --> --> If something is an idea, let's make it politically acceptable --> for the "work" to be done in the I*R*TF first. --> --- [SNIP] --- I think this is a gross mischaraterization of current practice in the IETF generally - however many exceptions we might find. Usually - at least among those of us that work for a living - we would not bring something to the IETF unless we were already in the process of implementing it and we have been encouraged by our employers (or - indirectly - by our customers) to bring it to the IETF. When people bring ideas to the IETF that "seem like a good thing" but aren't practical or implementable at the current time, they are usually encouraged to take those ideas to the IRTF. -- Eric _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf