Does the IETF use the protocols it designs ?
Do these incompetent Working Groups you refer to use IPv6 ?
Mars 128n 128e
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: "Marshall T. Rose"
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "Einar Stefferud" <stef(_at_)nma(_dot_)com>;
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.
perhaps, as noted earlier, the turning point was when wg's were
chartered to do requirements documents instead of protocol
documents. perhaps the problem is even earlier...
in my experience, one reason that a WG is chartered to do only a
document (there are others *) is that the WG appears to lack basic
but there isn't the political will to entirely block creation of the
so the group is allowed to do a requirements document in the hope that
will give the group more clue. sometimes it even works, but quite often
group ends up creating an immensely complex mess.
so the chartering of groups to do requirements documents may be a symptom
of the problem rather than the problem itself. but it probably does
in time with the "turning point".
* another reason is that the group's work needs to satisfy such a diverse
interests that the only way to get everyone on the same page is for the
to jointly write such a document.
p.s. I wish we'd stop calling them requirements documents, because we tend
to treat them as if they were carved in stone rather than merely an
in getting everyone to agree on a problem definition. "design goals" is