On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:24:50 +0200, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John C Klensin wrote: > > Eliot, > > > > The discussion of the question you asked here seems to have been > > immediately sidetracked. I, at least, believe the original question > > is worth some community discussion and possibly a conclusion. More > > below. > > Thank you, John. You've caught the jist of my concerns quite well. I > am a bit reticent at this point to propose changes. I think we have a > problem. Mike Heard had a reasonable point of view as well, which is > that perhaps the newtrk charter wasn't quite as constrained as it needed > to be for this kind of change. I do think at this point and time we are > not making the best use of the IAB, but again, I don't know what changes > I would propose to effect change. I do wish we could have a broader > discussion. > The IAB spends -- or spent; I haven't been on the IAB since 2000 -- an amazing percentage of its time on layer 9 issues. Most IAB members dislike that (and some ignore that part), but much of it seemed to be stuff that the IETF had to do. I suppose we could ask the Nomcom to select an IPB or an IPSG as well, but all things considered (and as one of the former stuckees) I think we're better off if our political relations were handled by folks with technical clue -- that is why the IETF's participation is generally sought. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf