At 10:27 AM 6/25/2001, you wrote:
> > So, the answer is, if you want to do it the IETF way, then just use
> > the WG working rules, and take the results to the IETF when you are
> > done, if the results look good enough.
>
>No, that would be sheer lunacy.
Hmmm. Seems to me that Stef speaks sense.
>Because it's quite often the case that such work:
>
>- either doesn't consider the problem from enough different points
> of view, or
Then they "request for comment" and get feedback from others interested in
the same problem. Isn't that how all this got started?
>- suffers from a lack of technical competence, or
Assuming automatically that someone from outside the IETF is incompetent is
just as arrogant as assuming that someone inside the IETF is competent.
Even the work inside the IETF sometimes suffers from a lack of technical
competence. Cluefulness is not a prerequisite for attending an IETF
meeting or attempting to participate in a WG. No, the playing field is
pretty level here. We put up with cluelessness at the IETF because there
is no metric for cluefulness that we can engage ahead of time. You bring
in the whole stalk of wheat and separate the wheat from the chaff in the
threshing process. I see entirely too little threshing going on in the
IETF these days. I think we worry to much that people will get their
little feelers hurt.
>- was actually developed in a (semi-)closed environment in order
> to favor certain stakeholders over others
That does not preclude the work from containing the seeds of good
ideas. Good ideas come from individuals, not from committees or
organizations. The IETF doesn't have a lock on good ideas. If a solution
applies to a subset of a problem it may have application to the larger
problem and/or it may trigger something in someone else's mind to come up
with the general solution. Developing it within the committee doesn't
guarantee anything.
>It's one thing to say that other groups would do well to use certain
>parts of the IETF process, quite another to say that IETF should
>endorse the work of other groups.
The IETF should endorse good work no matter where it comes from. The
"protocol by WG committee" approach espoused by the current IETF does not
always produce good work. It is the good ideas of a few which get adopted
by the committee that makes a good protocol.
<sigh> Where is Bill Simpson saying, "You're wrong," (in that abrasive and
melodious voice of his) and the strong, clueful WG chaircritter saying,
"Bill's right, you don't know what you are talking about so sit down and
shut up." The IETF could use some more of that again.
Yeah, Mo, a meritocracy, and people with merit can come from anywhere.
So let 'em build their protocol, whatever it is, and bring it to the
IETF. The problems with a really bad protocol can be extremely educational
and entertaining. The elegance of a really good protocol can be extremely
educational and entertaining. I don't see how we can lose.
Brian Lloyd
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1.530.676.1113 - voice
+1.360.838.9669 - fax
