> > > Trouble is, in our current process, there's rarely any formal request > > > for feedback, and little external visibility of a WG's output, until > > > Last Call. > > > > But I see your point. When I first attended an IETF meeting I was > > surprised to see how inward looking wgs are. There is very little, if > > any, effort to present what the working group is doing to people outside > > of the wg. > > I guess that if people are interested in the WG then they will > participate, or at least read the drafts as they come up in the i-d > announcement list. You can't force volunteers to take an interest. the problem is the assumption that people are either interested enough to participate in a WG or they're not interested at all in the outcome. for many WGs there are a significant number of people who will potentially be adversely affected by the outcome but who only have a peripheral interest in the design. we need a better way for WGs to get clues from those with peripheral interests than to expect those people to read every new I-D that comes out and try to evaluate it without benefit of mailing list context. > Perhaps requirements documents should be more like rationale documents: > "we chose to solve this problem in this way because of this"... In general we need to discourage the meme "requirements documents". We need problem definition documents and design goal documents from the early phases of the process, design rationale documents to explain particular decisions made at later phases. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf