Dave: >> The leadership in the ITU does not read the documents. Why? Their job is >> to make sure that the process was followed. >> >> The IESG needs to make sure the process was followed too. But, the IESG >> also has a quality check job. I would hate for this debate to lead to a >> step toward the ITU model. > > > As specious lines of logic go, your note was pretty efficient. It ignored > the specifics of the concerns being raised in this thread, their merits, and > the suggestions being made, and it invokes a cliche'd bogeyman. > > For example, the suggestions being made do not intent or imply that there > would be no technical content to the work of an AD. Also note that there are > many things that the ITU does; are we supposed to make a point of not doing > any of them, simply because the ITU does them? > > The IETF culture, structure and process are massively different from the > ITU's. None of the changes being proposed would turn the IETF into the ITU > or even move us towards them. > > If the merit of a suggestion is good or bad, let's focus on that, rather than > on who else is or is not doing it. > > But if you really want to focus on ITU fear, take a look at the time it now > takes to produce IETF specs, their increased complexity and the degree of > their eventual industry deployment. A comparison on the style and substance > of IETF vs. ITU technical work might prove enlightening...
Several people suggested that the AD could be a manager with little technical clue. I raised the extreme of that line of thinking. It is clear that no single person has all of the detailed knowledge to review every aspect of every IETF document. That said, it is very important that the AD have enough clue to detect a probable concern, and then they can turn to appropriate experts in the form of directorates, personal contacts, or even a plea for the right mail list. This requires some insight into the core technologies for the area and good working relationships within the area. Russ
