ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Uneccesary slowness.

2005-05-23 08:54:06
First, our group would have to come to some agreement on what would be 
considered "timely".Do we want to limit submission / introduction of new IETF 
documents to one month time frames? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years?
 
Some framework has to be agreed upon by the entire group to satisfy the 
criteria of being timely. Would most people feel that if IETF documents were 
introduced within, say, a year, would be considered timely, as long as said 
document(s) addressed issue relevant for the next 3+ years?
 
Once we have defined what would be considered timely, we could then focus more 
on some method of ammendment / addendum policy that could allow for IETF 
document adaptation over extended periods to allow for unaccounted-for 
situations and/or technologies.

Brian E Carpenter <brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
...
The only way to make sure deliveries of product -- in this case, IETF 
documents -- are timely is to decide when they are needed by and set firm 
deadlines. The IETF currently does not do that. Instead, we leave everything 
open-ended. 

I'm very curious how one can set rigid deadlines and simultaneously
require open debate to converge to a rough consensus before those
deadlines.

Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>