On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:46:41 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
The usual case for an individual submission is, I think:
- there are a number of people who see a need for it
- there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work
- nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done
Given that we are talking about an individual submission, two points from your
list are curious:
1. The last point is at least confusing, since the submission comes *after*
the work has been done; otherwise it would be a working group effort; so I do
not know what additional work you are envisioning.
2. Since there is no track record for the work -- given that it has not been
done in an IETF working group -- then what is the basis for assessing its
community support, abssent Last Call comments?
If one has no concern for the IETF's producing useless and unsupported
specifications, then it does not much matter whether marginal specifications
are passed. However the IESG's diligence at seeking perfection in working
group output submitted for approval suggests that, indeed, there is concern
both for efficacy and safety.
How are either of these assessed for an individual submission, if not by
requiring a Last Call to elicit substantial and serious commentary of support?
ps. The IESG used to be very forceful in requiring explicit statements
(demonstrations) of community support; . I suspect we have moved, instead,
towards delegating the assessment almost entirely to our representatives and
their subjective preferences for work that is submitted.
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
Ietf mailing list