Steve, > 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. > I agree, and while I don't really know what can be done around the external layer 9 issues, I don't think we have the balance quite right between the IAB and the IESG. The problem is that I also don't fully understand how the law of unintended consequences would play out if we tinkered. So for instance, suppose we had a rule that said that standards process changes were to be approved ONLY by the IAB? Could such a rule be used to bypass the IESG by an individual who didn't like a decision made by that body? And who gets to arbitrate over what a process change is? What about IANA considerations, for instance? This is NOT to say that using the IAB is the only avenue. Perhaps the right approach is simply NOT to have WGs make these proposals but instead let them flow from individuals sponsored either by an IESG or IAB member. Why am I thinking along these lines? It's simply because I believe we have ossified too much, and when the WG acted as intended, the IESG did not properly respond (IMHO). And again, I really don't know what sort of proposal would be best (if any). Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf