On Weds, 27th October 2010, at 13:56:25 -0700, Bob Braden wrote in part:
In this environment, the only thing that seems to make sense
is for WGs to start usually at Experimental (someone else
suggested this, I apologize for not recalling who it was).
Agreed.
Most times it would be better if IETF WGs initially create
an Experimental status RFC, possibly doing so quite rapidly,
and then later revise that (based on at experience) and
publish the revision on the IETF standards-track.
Indeed, this is what the LISP WG appears to be doing.
It also is how HIP started out (initially an IRTF HIP RG,
then an IETF HIP WG with Experimental RFCs, now the
IETF HIP WG is working on standards-track RFCs).
I am trying to follow that model with ILNP, which the
IRTF Routing RG has offered to the IRSG for publication
on the IRTF track, as a set of Experimental RFCs of course.
On Weds, 27th October 2010, at 14:48:22 -0700, Bob Braden wrote in part:
I note that there seems to be some correlation between
the degradation of the IETF process and the disappearance
of the Internet research community from the IETF
(the US government decided that no further R&D funding
was required, since the Internet was "done".)
Agreed.
There seems to be strong correlation between those events.
I believe that the USG (and other research funding bodies
elsewhere -- to be geographically neutral) were confused
when they erroneously thought either that the Internet
was "done" or that "industry would do any research that
might be needed in future".
The IAB's RFC-3869 expressed this concern in 2004, providing
several concrete examples of areas that industry wasn't solving
and that needed more research.
Yours,
Ran
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf