On 24-jun-2006, at 4:26, Keith Moore wrote:
IETF is already plunging toward irrelevance at terminal velocity.
The only way to
arrest the descent is for it to start producing better quality and
more relevant
specifications. A good start would be for it to actually pay some
attention to the problem definition and rough specification phases
and to conduct them in an environment where they can get meaningful
review outside of a narrow community.
I don't think the solution is more hoops to jump through. Unless I'm
mistaken, the IESG already has significant lattitude in rejecting
protocols or imposing additional requirements. Building in stuff to
save the day in the cases where the IESG gets it wrong is a waste of
everyone's time, IMO. Lightening the IESG's load so they can reflect
on the errors of their ways sooner would be more helpful in those cases.
I don't know about "narrow community", but I agree that good reviews
are essential. Reviewing is hard, especially with long documents /
complex specifications (unfortunately it still seems some RFC writers
are paid by the word) and also when there are many dependencies. And
there's essentially nothing in it for the reviewer, so only people
who are very much in favor or very much against something bother,
with the former probably not being in the best position to uncover
hidden problems.
In my opinion, if the IETF could make it worth someone's while in one
way or another to do a thorough review, that would help a lot.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf