On Dec 26, 2014, at 5:23 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
But the differences area assignments make can have effects on
the Internet that go far beyond the management/steering of the
IETF. As an example, at and before the time of RRC 1123, the
DNS was considered an application. At some point, it was
reassigned into the Internet area (I don't remember the reasons
but recall them being a little bit arbitrary). A lot of the
focus since then has been on DNS features and operations as ends
in themselves. Questions like "how will this be used", "how will
it affect users", and "what will be the implications on the
Internet's applications architecture" have sometimes (or often)
gotten lost in the process. It is also the case that there has
never been a lot of deep database expertise in the IETF, but
there has almost always been more of it among active Apps area
participants than in the Internet area and that, too, has design
consequences, especially when discussions break out about, e.g.,
how far DNS-style aliases can reasonably be extended or what the
implications are of flattening a hierarchical database
architecture. Sometimes those discussions don't even happen, at
least until it is too late -- I think that is another
consequence of area choices.
I find your arguments unconvincing as they relate to the reorg that's being
discussed, because there are _always_ blind spots. Expecting Area Directors
to be omniscient doesn't scale--there just aren't enough of us that are.
That said, I think that your observation here is correct, and ought to be
addressed. I just don't agree that it leads to the conclusion you drew.
What you are describing here is the classic cross-area review problem. If ADs
workloads allowed for it, perhaps we would do a better job at this. I can
certainly imagine a change in structure where each working group has a
responsible AD, but also a second AD who tries to pay attention to what the
working group is doing, from a different area. What I just said isn't the
actual solution, because ADs don't currently have that much bandwidth, but
perhaps there's a pony in there somewhere.