Jari Arkko wrote:
Hi Keith,
Keith, you have been advocating a model where the IETF would be
stricter in allowing what work be taken up, in order to ensure that
we can actually deliver. But I share the same opinion as John L that
we should rather try to shape the IETF so that it can deliver what
the world needs.
My primary criterion when arguing whether IETF should or should not
take up a WG was always, in some sense, whether the Internet needed
IETF to be involved in and supporting this effort. It involved both
an assessment of how much harm would result from a botched design (in
particular, a design that didn't respect the Internet environment and
other protocols on the net), and of whether IETF could expend the
resources necessary to manage the group and whether it could bring the
necessary expertise to the table. It also involved an assessment of
whether the proposed protocol would actually be of benefit to the
Internet long-term.
All good criteria! I would probably add "assessment of whether lack of
the protocol would be of
harm to the Internet long-term" (assuming the protocol falls within our
scope, as you correctly
point out below). Here's an example: a protocol that is within IETF
scope, but we suddenly
stop maintaining it to respond to changing requirements, or open it up
to vendor extensions
without providing good abstractions that maintain interoperability.
This is very close to the IESG's thinking about what we should
and shouldn't charter. The yardstick is RFC 3935. We can always make
mistakes, of course, and we need to think about what work is being done
by other organisations.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
