ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: The IETF Mission

2004-01-19 14:52:02
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Eric A. Hall wrote:
Another approach here is to allow for the creation of ad-hoc WGs. That
would provide a cleaner path for tangential documents that don't fit
within existing charters, and would facilitate broader group review of
independent submissions. Speaking for myself, I've written some drafts
that I would have liked to seen progressl, but didn't fit in existing WGs,
and the requirements for new WGs were too stringent to pursue. This latter
 issue is also one of the reasons behind the relatively low involvement
from the developing-world community, and exacerbates the feelings of
powerlessness and resentment that end up costing us recovery time fighting
off the well-meaning fools who would make this problem worse by handing
control to organizations with even higher barriers of entry.

Maybe you have a common(?) fallacy that once a WG is established, you 
start to magically a better and broader review of the drafts.

Often this is not the case.

But the core point is, I think, how can one attract the reviewers or 
people in general to read and send feedback on an idea which has been 
documented in an Internet-draft.  This is obviously a difficult 
problem, as everybody probably thinks their work is special.

One thing which *might* make it easier, for the drafts which relate to
existing technologies, is if there were "maintenance teams" for the
core protocols, with mailing-lists one could spam one's ideas to,
hoping for feedback from the people interested in a subject.  Not sure
if that would help significantly though..
 
-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>