My cynicism hasn't reached that level yet, although people tell me that
it will get there very soon given some of the activities I have signed
up for. :)
That out of the way, the intention of the proposal is to provide a
framework for people with reasonable ideas for work at the IETF to
develop those ideas and eventually succeed in standardization of
protocols in that area, and sooner than later. (the venue for
developing the ideas for work is the SG whereas standardization of
protocols is to happen in WGs that may or may not have been formed as a
result of the SGs).
regards,
Lakshminath
On 10/11/2007 11:02 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Thursday, 11 October, 2007 10:03 -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
<ldondeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Just for the record, if the norm ends up being "Idea --> BoF-1
--> BoF-2 --> SG --> WG," I would be very disappointed and
would chalk that up under the law of unintended consequences
:).
Unfortunately, there is some history in the IETF that might lead
someone who is even mildly cynical about the way procedures
unfold and are used (and it is probably obvious that I passed
"mildly" long ago) to predict that would be exactly the outcome,
unintended or not. To the extent to which the IESG tends to be
responsive to community input and sensitive to constraints about
meeting and management time --and I'd hope they would be
responsive to both -- it might take only a few loud voices
saying "not ready" to turn BOF1 into a requirement for BOF2
(arguably we see that already) and similar voices to turn the
outcome of BOF2 from "WG" into "SG and more consideration".
In practice, that might turn at least some SGs into exactly what
I think you are trying to avoid: an indeterminable series of
BOF-list sessions with a charter and under a different name.
That would also be an unintended consequence, but I don't see
how to avoid it other than to trust the IESG to manage SGs more
aggressively than they have historically managed WGs and to
assume that the community would vigorously support them in
applying that level of management.
I am hoping that "Idea --> SG --> WG" or "Idea --> BoF1
--> SG --> WG" in that order become the norm (where SG is
involved of course), especially when proponents of new work
are people who may not be regulars at the IETF.
If the goal is really the education and socialization of
newcomers and refinement of their ideas, shouldn't we be
thinking about more direct, explicit, and efficient ways to do
that, rather than about new procedures and process steps?
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf