On 6/19/13 9:01 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
Looking back in hindsight, what would help is to have some means for
the IETF to provide a maintenance vehicle for it's products. Or
realize that the "waterfall model" that seems to be in place is no
longer appropriate. (As if you've never heard that before!) The
world changes (the new majority) but the IETF acts as if "once it's an
RFC it is done."
Are we perhaps not using area meetings with the effectiveness that we
should be? Now that I'm cutting my teeth on the AD sponsoring thing I'm
begining to understand why AD's are reluctant to use the tool liberally
and the next best place assuming the existance of a critical mass of
existing participants would be for example appsawg.
This is an example of an ICANN initiated piece of work that barely got
into the IETF, the IETF completed it in a way that has benefit beyond
ICANN (meaning many ccTLDs have adopted it on their own accord), but
the IETF didn't make it easy and didn't help the deployment. I hope
the latter phase isn't repeated with the WEIRDS WG and RDAP.
PS. With WEIRDS there's a much more substantial industry and majority
than "back in the day". Just something to keep in mind.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis
NeuStar You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468
There are no answers - just tradeoffs, decisions, and responses.