On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:24:50 +0200, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
John C Klensin wrote:
Eliot,
The discussion of the question you asked here seems to have been
immediately sidetracked. I, at least, believe the original question
is worth some community discussion and possibly a conclusion. More
below.
Thank you, John. You've caught the jist of my concerns quite well. I
am a bit reticent at this point to propose changes. I think we have a
problem. Mike Heard had a reasonable point of view as well, which is
that perhaps the newtrk charter wasn't quite as constrained as it needed
to be for this kind of change. I do think at this point and time we are
not making the best use of the IAB, but again, I don't know what changes
I would propose to effect change. I do wish we could have a broader
discussion.
The IAB spends -- or spent; I haven't been on the IAB since 2000 -- an
amazing percentage of its time on layer 9 issues. Most IAB members dislike
that (and some ignore that part), but much of it seemed to be stuff that
the IETF had to do. I suppose we could ask the Nomcom to select an IPB or
an IPSG as well, but all things considered (and as one of the former
stuckees) I think we're better off if our political relations were handled
by folks with technical clue -- that is why the IETF's participation is
generally sought.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf