Keith Moore wrote:
while this is true, neither Poisson or its predecessors has ever been
quite like any other working group. in my experience IESG has felt
considerable pressure to follow the direction of Poisson, and some
reluctance to object to Poisson discussing a particular topic.
And that is just the problem, with Poisson being populated by a small subset
of active IETF participants and a number of people whose main interest is
in fact process issues.
yes, but we have that problem with *every* working group whose decisions
affects those whose core interest is not that group. nat, midcom,
dhcp, dns* are all examples of efforts that have the power to change the
basic services that are used by other layers - and have a potentially adverse
effect on the ability of the Internet to support existing or new applications.
Agreed, but in theory at least the ADs, the IESG as a whole, and the IAB are
supposed to look out for that sort of thing (whether we succeed is another
question). That doesn't work for the process because those are exactly the same
people as have a vested interest in the process. That's why I think that
major process issues really deserve exposure on the IETF list, *including*
exposure to people who don't want to know. Of course details can be debated
in a WG, whether it's Poisson or an ad hoc group.
at least Poisson doesn't have the ability to break IP.
wanna bet? :-)
again, I'm fine with shutting down poisson but I think we need to find
better ways to address some of the problems that poisson tried to address -
and simply moving the discussion to the IETF list is not IMHO sufficient.
No, and that wasn't Harald's proposal - as I read it, it was to take the
discussion to an ad hoc WG after exposing the issue on the main list.
Brian