On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 22:24:50 +0200, Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
> > Eliot,
> >
> > The discussion of the question you asked here seems to have been
> > immediately sidetracked. I, at least, believe the original question
> > is worth some community discussion and possibly a conclusion. More
> > below.
>
> Thank you, John. You've caught the jist of my concerns quite well. I
> am a bit reticent at this point to propose changes. I think we have a
> problem. Mike Heard had a reasonable point of view as well, which is
> that perhaps the newtrk charter wasn't quite as constrained as it needed
> to be for this kind of change. I do think at this point and time we are
> not making the best use of the IAB, but again, I don't know what changes
> I would propose to effect change. I do wish we could have a broader
> discussion.
>
The IAB spends -- or spent; I haven't been on the IAB since 2000 -- an
amazing percentage of its time on layer 9 issues. Most IAB members dislike
that (and some ignore that part), but much of it seemed to be stuff that
the IETF had to do. I suppose we could ask the Nomcom to select an IPB or
an IPSG as well, but all things considered (and as one of the former
stuckees) I think we're better off if our political relations were handled
by folks with technical clue -- that is why the IETF's participation is
generally sought.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
