On 3-aug-2005, at 16:09, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
For the cases where there is a major infrastructure change that
needs to
be achieved I would like to see a more interactive process. At present
the development model is a bunch of boffins go out into a shed, build
something and then ask the customer if they like it.
This process has not really worked for IPv6 or DNSSEC and I don't
think
it is likely to work for BGPSecurity either.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a better way to do it.
(Having a new standard imposed by the government would be more
efficient, but still not "better".)
What kind of trouble are you expecting with BGP security, by the way?
One problem here is that there is no way that any shed is ever
going to
be big enough to fit in all the parties that might have a stake in the
outcome.
That's a feature. The people are in the shed to brainstorm or work
out boring but important details. Neither of those work in groups
that are big enough encompass all possible stakeholders.
The people in the shed don't automatically get consensus, they have
to convince the larger group that their work has merit. So when they
come up with something bad, they've mostly wasted their own time and
know better in the future.
Rather than treating the inputs from other organizations as individual
contributions I would like to see groups that have major
infrastructure
change have a process available for formally soliciting input from the
various consortia where the stakeholders whose participation is
essential tend to meet.
Sounds an awful lot like the way ICANN does things. Although this way
of doing things allows for additional decisiveness, it also adds a
lot of contention after the fact.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf