Whatever happened to simple, generic arrangements? :-)
ISO WGs getting out of their depth. The combination of generality --
the attempt to cover all cases, even some that will never occur and
others that are only half-thought-out -- and the complexity that results
from that particular form/interpretation of generality is, in my
experience, _the_ most common symptom of groups who are expert in one
area thinking that gives them expertise in all other areas that touch on
it.
ISO WGs are particularly vunerable to this, since the rules permit a
group that has developed a standard (and may have been just the right
selection of experts for that standard) to then start generating NWIs
for things that bear on that standard but that have no technical
relationship to it at all.
To the degree to which IETF, on average, produces better products, I
believe it is in part because we shut WGs down and create new ones
--with enhanced opportunities for new leadership, membership and
perspectives-- when new programmes of work come along, rather than
permitting virus-like expansion of roles and unfocused programmes. When
we have failed to do that, we, too, end up with ill-considered attempts
at generalization that tend to result in excess complexity and leaving
"hooks" for things that more closely resemble round holes for square
pegs when those "things" actually evolve to the point where they can be
defined.
If anyone thinks I'm referring to any specific efforts or suggestions
here, in either the email or the IIA work areas, well, to quote and old
proverb, "if the shoe fits, wear it".
--john-the-depressed