On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I am not a fan of making IETF processes dependent on
technologies that don't "belong" to the IETF and I don't
think it's a trivial concern, but if the IETF tools
aren't working for us it makes sense to look outside for
tools that do.
I don't disagree. But I have a slightly different perspective, and I'd
value feedback from the community.
It seems to me that it would be inefficient for the IETF to do everything
ourselves.
For instance we may choose to use applications that have their own APIs,
protocols, etc without requiring the IETF to standardize the whole stack.
(To illustrate my point: consider non-IETF standards from IEEE, W3C, etc
and/or tools like WebEx, YouTube, etc.) I don't think we should limit
ourselves to only using things that "belong" to the IETF if that means
limiting our productivity without good reason.
More to the point, it seems reasonable to outsource tools when doing so is
the best choice. Just because we /can/ run our own instance of some service
doesn't mean that we /should/. I'm especially cognizant of the economics of
these choices, given that the IETF budget is limited. There may be cases
where we need more control, exposure to the technology, etc, and thus
sometimes the "best choice" is not primarily driven by financial
considerations. But it's not rational to be steered by a bias for doing
things ourselves at the expense of other opportunities, productivity, etc.
My straw-man conclusion, for your consideration and criticism, is that we
should routinely consider "cloud based" tools as a first-class option.
For what it's worth, in my role on the IAOC I observe that we do consider
all of our options today. But I may also observe a bias in the community
that I'd like to understand better.
Thanks,
-Benson