Just one follow-on here - I'm seeing postings from others that
seem to imply that we need IESG review because that's where the
clue is, while Dave is pointing out that the IESG isn't the only
source of Internet architecture clue.
As I read Dave's note, this suggestion is an invitation for
people to develop clue before involving IESG folk, rather than
another black hole to absorb IESG time and effort (no matter how
noble the effort)...
Better for scaling, no?
SPencer
--- Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
BN> -- might be a bit too optimistic...I don't think it goes
BN> quite far enough in noting that it will probably take
BN> review by members of the small cadre of IETF architecture
BN> experts to be sure that all relevant requirements and
that's fine. the point of the exercise is to require
specification
authors to pay significant attention to the question. this
actively
creates a dialogue on the issues, rather than hoping that some
clever
architect notices this particular document.