>
> COOK: good lord keith.... Surely stef's whole point is that the
> Area Directors, IESG, and IAB need only accept work that WAS good
> enough from THEIR own point of view.
>
> it sounds like you are saying that it simply is not possible to
> construct anything that could even merit IETF review unless you did
> the construction from scratch within all the channels of the IETF?
> If so it sounds like you are determined to keep the views of the
> current AD's, IESG and IAB as a gate through which ALL ideas must
> pass and are saying that it is flat out impossible for anyone to
> develop working code that could pass the scrutiny test. How do you
> know until, you see it?
>
The whole point is that you will not know until you see the code. But
what does that really mean? Its not as if the IESG has infinite time
on their hands. The IESG performs a review of the work that was done
by a working group, but it does that review knowing that the work that
is being reviewed was monitored by an AD and was performed with the
ability for any member of the IETF to comment on the work; raise
compatibility and security issues, etc.
It would be absurd to assume that the members of the IESG are all
knowing and powerful and could catch any or every design error that
might be incorporated into a protocol design. Especially when it
comes to security considerations we often see problems in work that
was done by outside groups.
There is no reason for a protocol whose authors plan to seek IETF
backing to be developed outside the IETF.
- Jeff
Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer C-Kermit 7.1 Alpha available
The Kermit Project @ Columbia University includes Secure Telnet and FTP
http://www.kermit-project.org/ using Kerberos, SRP, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenSSL. SSH soon to follow.
