> > yes, but we have that problem with *every* working group whose decisions > > affects those whose core interest is not that group. nat, midcom, > > dhcp, dns* are all examples of efforts that have the power to change the > > basic services that are used by other layers - and have a potentially > > adverse effect on the ability of the Internet to support existing or new > > applications. > > Agreed, but in theory at least the ADs, the IESG as a whole, and the IAB are > supposed to look out for that sort of thing (whether we succeed is another > question). That doesn't work for the process because those are exactly the > same people as have a vested interest in the process.
good point. > > again, I'm fine with shutting down poisson but I think we need to find > > better ways to address some of the problems that poisson tried to address - > > and simply moving the discussion to the IETF list is not IMHO sufficient. > > No, and that wasn't Harald's proposal - as I read it, it was to take the > discussion to an ad hoc WG after exposing the issue on the main list. well, I guess I have a couple of items I'd like to see on that WG's charter. Keith
