On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Hi Phillip,
I am personally not worried that the standardization work in the IETF can be sabotaged by governments since our process is open, and transparent to everyone who cares to see what is going on. I could, however, see easily how that is a problem with some other organizations (without listing any).
Really?
Are IESG decisions transparent? Where are the audio recordings of the con calls? Is the IESG/IAB retreat transparent? The NOMCON process certainly is not.
I have been in pretty much every standards body in the field and the view of the IETF from outside the IETF is exactly the same as the one you just gave of those other organizations. Its the reverse of the grass is always greener.
Document editors have a huge amount of discretion in what they do or do not include in their documents. Rather more influence than the Chairs in most WGs.
The traditional view of an RFC is that it is just a description of the design. What I am arguing for is that we need to capture both the final design and the design process. People are not going to go through ancient working group archives to convince themselves that the design is sound. The design docs have to provide all the explanation necessary.
I believe it is useful to talk about specific cases instead of abstract concerns to see whether there is a problem at all in the IETF. Maybe that would allow us to find out whether there is a room for improvement.
I don't want to talk about specific cases because that leads to the game of hunt the NSA mole which is a really bad idea.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/