On 05/15/2013 10:00 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013, Keith Moore wrote:
I'd like to see WGs be more pro-active about periodically summarizing
the salient points of their proposals, determining which parties
outside of the WG are likely to be affected, explicitly soliciting
input from those parties, and explicitly considering that input in
their deliberations. Some WGs do this, but for most WGs I don't
think it happens often enough or formally/transparently enough.
I agree. I'm also participating on nanog-l and other operator lists,
and it's very rarely that a WG solicits feedback in those kinds of
forums.
Question is, if larger feedback is requested, a lot of the time a
larger feedback will be generated, and more work needed to go through
this feedback and answer it.
End result might be better, but overall workload would be up, both in
preparation phase and when feedback is coming in. I'm sure end result
would probably be better, but more work would be needed, probably
resulting in less technical work being done.
We need to be careful about the tendency to measure IETF's output in
terms of the number of RFCs produced. I'd like to see IETF produce
fewer (and sometimes shorter) RFCs of more relevance and higher
technical quality, than we do now.
Keith