Eric,
--- [SNIP ---
--> 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.
-->
--- [SNIP] ---
I think this is a gross mischaraterization of current practice in
the IETF generally - however many exceptions we might find.
Usually - at least among those of us that work for a living - we
would not bring something to the IETF unless we were already in
the process of implementing it and we have been encouraged by our
employers (or - indirectly - by our customers) to bring it to the
IETF.
When people bring ideas to the IETF that "seem like a good thing"
but aren't practical or implementable at the current time, they
are usually encouraged to take those ideas to the IRTF.
--
Eric
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf