Trouble is, in our current process, there's rarely any formal request
for feedback, and little external visibility of a WG's output, until
Last Call.
But I see your point. When I first attended an IETF meeting I was
surprised to see how inward looking wgs are. There is very little, if
any, effort to present what the working group is doing to people outside
of the wg.
I guess that if people are interested in the WG then they will
participate, or at least read the drafts as they come up in the i-d
announcement list. You can't force volunteers to take an interest.
the problem is the assumption that people are either interested enough
to participate in a WG or they're not interested at all in the
outcome. for many WGs there are a significant number of people who
will potentially be adversely affected by the outcome but who only have
a peripheral interest in the design. we need a better way for WGs to
get clues from those with peripheral interests than to expect those
people to read every new I-D that comes out and try to evaluate it
without benefit of mailing list context.
Perhaps requirements documents should be more like rationale documents:
"we chose to solve this problem in this way because of this"...
In general we need to discourage the meme "requirements documents". We
need problem definition documents and design goal documents from the
early phases of the process, design rationale documents to explain particular
decisions made at later phases.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf