I understand the concerns you express. What surprises me with the
IETF is the lack of methodology (at least for a French brain). This
seems to fit the model since it works: it then should be preserved,
at least in part. This may also be one of the systemic root of the
problem. Brian introduces the possibility of a one shot test in that
area, a way to gain collective experience. So, I would suggest a
phased approach.
John says a "clear and concise problem definition on which there was
obvious community consensus" would be great. To propose one cannot be
carried by the whole community: it would be confused, eventually lead
by usual people, already addressing the whole problem, new ideas we
need would pile and could not be documented enough to gain momentum.
On another end, I agree that defining the problem is half defining
the solution.
I would suggest the PECSI be missioned to come up with several
possible basic problem definitions, consensually approved by their
supporters (to make sure they are complete) through a Last Call. Then
a community debate could be over a PECSI II Charter. That PECSI II
would produce a revised IETF model to be commonly discussed. Then a
PECSI III could produce a detailed road map to implement it. Such a
road map would probably consistently describe the common document
Brian calls for (a PECSI IV could write and maintain) and of all the
updates to be carried by the appropriate areas and WGs?
If that process was positive, it could then be tried in other IETF
deliveries processes. If not, at every stage the common debate can
decide to terminate it or to adapt it. But I feel that even aborted,
each stage would already produce interesting and structured enough results.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf