On Sep 10, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
That said, at the plenary at IETF 81, Harald suggested that we have waited so
long that incremental improvements may not be the right approach, rather it
was time for 2026bis. I agree that it is needed, but I am not sure the IETF
community is willing to tackle a project of that size and complexity.
I suspect that there are two underlying problems, both significant.
1. Many people would see an attempt to change the process as a "threat" of one
kind or another, feeling like the result of such change under current
circumstances would likely be worse than the status quo.
2. There seems to be wide perceptual variation among IETF participants as to
the organization's purpose and/or what's wrong with the current process.
I think there's a need for consensus-building around these two topics (and
perhaps others) before even considering whether and how to revise 2026. In the
first case, we need to find out what people see as threats and use that to
bound the charter of the rewrite effort so that people won't feel like they
have to be in damage control mode. But the second topic is even more
important.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf