Pre-IETF work ( was - Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists")

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

 





I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens _before_
adoption as a WG draft.
and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
process.


But this isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It's nice to have reasonably
well thought out ideas come in.


The IETF has a long history of starting efforts from many different levels of technical maturity.

However there seems to be some recent leadership pressure to change this, attempting an ad hoc policy, by suddenly choosing to challenge the importation of existing work apparently based on a spontaneous, personal belief that it is bad to have IETF start from existing, deployed specifications.

There is, for example, a difference between saying "given the maturity and deployment of the document, what is the technical work to be done in the IETF?" versus "given the maturity and deployment of the document, why are you bringing it to the IETF?" In pure terms, the latter question is, of course, entirely valid.

In pragmatic terms, I'll suggest that it is cast in a way that is frankly unfriendly, as well as going against quite a bit of established -- and productive -- practice.

I'll remind folk of the Thaler research suggesting that such work has the best track record of success for the modern IETF.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 bbiw.net


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