On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com
wrote:
In theory the purpose of having the IETF meet as it does is to
encourage people in different areas to work together.
So why is it that whenever I propose designing something for WG A in a
fashion that allows it to be used by working group B along the road
that there is a constant chorus of 'out of scope'?
Thanks for your participation in joining work for the best of IETF. I know
there are people that prefer to separate issues for other purposes. So we
should discuss this issue including IESG.
I agree that it is very is to say out of scope, but the difficulty is to
confirm/convince with clear reason that it is out of scope. In technology
things are getting very very integrated, so it can be out of scope to make
things simple. On the other hand, the problem is due to work-management, or
in the hand of the ADs of those two WGs (WG-A and WG-B). However, if the AD
say it is out of scope that means it should be true. Furthermore, the
question must be answered by the IESG, or we can say why not having
cross-WG issues/discussion-list that we distinguish where we SHOULD
separate work and/or where we MUST join work. Usually the main job of
directors/IESG is to solve this problem of separate-works or inconsistency
in IETF works.
AB