On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Bob Hinden
<bob(_dot_)hinden(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Randy,
On Apr 2, 2015, at 6:18 PM, Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
It more than expanding the acronyms. In this case expanding the
acronyms wouldn’t solve the problem ...
We could do a lot better here.
the problem is that these are not written with the general ietf audience
in mind, meaning folk from optical to apps [0]. they are written for folk
already familiar with the subject.
I agree. If these notices are sent to the IETF list, they should be written
to be understandable to the general IETF audience. Otherwise, what is the
point of sending them to the IETF list.
Another part of the problem is that often pre-WG lists are formed on
the basis of a solution rather than a set of requirements.
Often the solutions in question are hobbyhorses or factional and
acronyms are used to bias the decision.
For example, lets say there was a nonWG list looking at email security
approaches using the DNS, using DNSSEC, using DANE. These are actually
very different statements. The first is a research proposal, the
second is an engineering effort, the third is a fan club.
There is a big difference between focus and censorship. The way a lot
of folk try to get their way is to frame the scope of a problem so
that their proposal is the only one that fits. That is a good way to
get your way in IETF, it is a losing prospect when you are trying to
get deployment.
If people don't even want to have open discussion in non-WG lists then
the epistemic closure is complete.