ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: what happened to newtrk?

2006-09-13 00:34:50
Steve,
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.
  

I agree, and while I don't really know what can be done around the
external layer 9 issues, I don't think we have the balance quite right
between the IAB and the IESG.  The problem is that I also don't fully
understand how the law of unintended consequences would play out if we
tinkered.  So for instance, suppose we had a rule that said that
standards process changes were to be approved ONLY by the IAB?  Could
such a rule be used to bypass the IESG by an individual who didn't like
a decision made by that body?  And who gets to arbitrate over what a
process change is?  What about IANA considerations, for instance?  This
is NOT to say that using the IAB is the only avenue.  Perhaps the right
approach is simply NOT to have WGs make these proposals but instead let
them flow from individuals sponsored either by an IESG or IAB member.

Why am I thinking along these lines?  It's simply because I believe we
have ossified too much, and when the WG acted as intended, the IESG did
not properly respond (IMHO).  And again, I really don't know what sort
of proposal would be best (if any).

Eliot

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>