-------- Original Message --------
Hi Keith,
If that's indeed the case, the first order of business needs to
be to document current practice. I see no chance of making
forward progress on actual changes without first having a
consensus as to what our current state is.
I was just about to reply to John's message saying exactly the same
thing. My belief is that any attempt to revise 2026 is likely to
introduce a kind of second-system effect - there is so much pent-up
demand for changes to our process that everyone has his own idea
about how to do it. The only way we have any hope of getting real
consensus on a path forward is to first get a shared understanding
of where we are now.
As I replied to Ned privately, our intent is to go in that direction
in general. I believe in Brian Kantor's mantra: document existing
practices. Furthermore, an Internet-Draft without rough consensus of
the community is just two opinions. To that end, I'm putting aside
my own opinion on a bunch of issues in favor of trying to find that
consensus. I think we should make additional changes to this
document that reflect reality. Several of John's suggestions meet
that criteria.
I could also imagine VERY incremental changes that are agreed to be
non-controversial.
this is often how the second-system effect starts, and it nearly always
works out badly.
My suggestion is that we first start by getting agreement on the
changes in the draft that are there, including two-step process Scott
& I have proposed, which I believe is a compromise between the
reality of a one step process and some peoples' desires.
well, I have my own idea about how to revise the standards process,
which, while not totally dissimilar to yours, is different enough that
you and I are not likely to be able to agree on a compromise without a
fair amount of discussion. and a few dozen other people probably have
similar ideas. so no, I don't think that getting agreement on your
proposal is a good first step.
it's one thing to try to get convergence between different people's
ideas when there's a vacuum to fill, quite another to get that
convergence when there's something already in place and a pent-up desire
to change it. if you want an example of the latter, consider the IPng
effort. (and for an example of the former, consider the DRUMS WG -
which was difficult enough as it turned out, but was only made easier by
the fact that the charter expressly forbid new functionality and the
chairs could beat people over the heads with that)
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf