Fred,
This is a far more satisfying topic than nomcom process or working
group (non)productivity. Or perhaps it is more useful, since it can
serve as a bit of a reminder about our scope.
The nice thing about the NWG label is that it is so generic, nothing
ties it to the original ARPA team(s) or the later IP development team.
I've occasionally wondered at the wasted space on the page. The fact
that it is invariant means that it contains no information.
However the historical utility is that it suggests (to me at last)
that there is a group continuity, and it identifies the document as
part of a 33-year history of evolving effort.
In effect, it rather completely means that the series is NOT about the
original contributors, but about a class of contributions.
One might or might not believe that the noise level of the series has
improved (or deteriorated), but the nature of the series has been
pretty consistent.
d/
Monday, March 10, 2003, 3:16:45 PM, you wrote:
FB> 40 years ago a group of researchers was funded by DARPA to study
FB> packet-based communications, one part of which was the Network Working
FB> Group. Part of this group has since become the IRTF's End2End Research
FB> Group, and the rest of the functions have devolved on the IAB and the IETF.
FB> The Network Working Group, as such, has not been functional for nearly 20
FB> years.
FB> I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The
FB> world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date
FB> themselves.
d/
--
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>