On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 12:03:00PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Many things Internet have scaled. The IETF ain't one of them. Some people > are still insisting that it work in the same way as 25 years ago. How can > that make sense. Well, the IETF hasn't scaled very well, but it's still functional -- it hasn't collapsed yet. > W3C didn't scale either, we ended up having to create OASIS. "There can only be so many adults in the room, and they can't keep up with the kids." If we want to have OASIS-style IESG-Review-less publication tracks, why not do that. We could even charge $$$ for that and eat OASIS' lunch. Provided the brand for that is sufficiently distinguished from the Standards-Track brand, it should be fine. Also we could have a lot more Expert Review / Documentation Required IANA registries -- far short of Standards Action --, and we could require that Standards-Track protocols have Expert Review extensions IANA registries as much as possible. This would greatly alleviate the bandwidth demands of many WGs and speed up the rate at which the IETF (and IANA) does useful work while still retaining an element of the "adults in the room" value that the IETF provides today. No, I'm dead serious about this. PKIX, HTTP, TLS, SSH, Kerberos, NFS, BGP, this, that, and the other, all should be required to have Expert Review w/ Documentation Required IANA registries for all extensions except where the WG makes a strong case that WG/IETF/IESG review is essential. > IETF meetings are supposed to be designed for two things: working the > drafts and exchanging ideas between the WGs and areas. And they do a poor > job at both. They do a good enough job of the latter, IMO. But I'm not sure it's worth the cost -- a whole week of hobnobbing and not getting things done, x3/yr, which is 1/16th of the year, plus travel time plus additional pre-meeting prep, post-meeting work, and IETF meetings take much closer to 1/8th of each attendee's year, and the best that happens is that consensus is facilitated in order to do actual work at with the rest of one's 7/8ths of the year (much of which often isn't directly IETF-related). > How about this for a radical plan, Have a joint > ETSI-OASIS-W3C-CABForum-IETF meeting (and anyone else). do it maybe once > every two years. And make it all about what each of the organizations is > doing and where they are going rather than work. Focus on the exchange part. Sure. > Oh and stick a trade show on the side, make a bundle Yes! Attach it to something like SXSW. Nico --
