Re: Please Review Draft IESG Statement on Activities that are OBE

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



John,

... a large fraction of the
community (probably a majority) had concluded that TCP/IP was
OBE.  ...
... we would have shut down
(or never started) any work on XMPP ...

Right.

You also wrote in another mail:

I do, however, have a concern that he didn't mention (and might
not agree with).  While I am generally in favor of the IESG's
telling the community about how it thinks about issues, there is
a fuzzy boundary between doing that and trying to create more
and more rules and mechanisms in the hope that those can be
substituted for careful judgment.  There isn't quite enough
information in this statement for me to be sure how the IESG
intends to use it (that is not a complaint), but I fear it will
lie on the "more rules" rather than "better explanation" side of
the boundary.

That is something that I also care about. Note that the statement says almost nothing about the real reasons for being OBE; the IESG and the community need to apply judgment in making such decisions.

For instance, what is a "non-problem"? We have to be very careful about that. For instance, I think it would be inappropriate to declare an application as something addressing a non-problem when its only used by a small number of people. Its hard to predict usage patterns, and what seems to be "winning" right now may be dead tomorrow, and vice versa. A far more workable rule for continuing IETF work is whether the group actually invests cycles in it, progresses specifications, produces technically sound solutions, has running code, and so on. Even the most non-OBE WG may have to be terminated, if no one is doing work.

But where these decisions get difficult is when the different indicators give you a different answer. For instance, if you have an active WG that has half a dozen implementations and is making progress with its specifications, but everyone else in the IETF believes we do not need it, the WG has hard remaining issues in its specifications, or that the results may even be harmful in some context. There is no easy answer in such cases.

Jari

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]