IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea.
We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the idea will work.
We produce lots of half-baked documents with little basis in working
code. Then folks try implementing what's been spec'ed, find it doesn't
work, but then find a ton of resistance to change, because the specs are
three years old and "we don't want to break draft-mumble-05
implementations."
If something is an idea, let's make it politically acceptable for the
"work" to be done in the I*R*TF first.
Yes, I agree that the process should be fuzzy - the AD should be able to
figure out if something is likely to work in the real world. However,
building a work group out of an idea, rather than somewhat working code
or a demonstration framework, should be the exception, rather than the
rule.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Dave Crocker
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:13 PM
To: Jeffrey Hutzelman
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Working Group chartering
[snip]
And here is where we have the major disconnect.
Working groups start from a wide variety of places. Some start with an
idea. Some with a detailed proposal. Some with a detailed
specification and some with existing and deployed technology. When a
working group starts, it must make the strategic decision about how much
prior work to preserve, versus how much new work to encourage or
require.
[snip]
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf