On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Christopher Morrow wrote:
My note prompted at least (so far) one private note that reminded me that yelling sometimes doesnt' get what I want :( In general the process/outcome from IETF (for v6 things) has gotten better not worse, some bumps still to iron out though (which is expected).
There are absolutely improvements to be had. Both the IETF and the ops community could improve a lot in its communication, but I don't see this improving radically soon. A lot of ISPs rely on their vendors to do the right thing, the vendors might rely on other vendors to do the design work, and vendors might internally within themselves squabble what should be done, and academics are somewhere up in the air doing whatever is hot in their granting committee at the time.
I think a lot could be done by even more announcements of new drafts on the ops list and asking for comments there, that might lure more people onto the IETF lists as well.
Doing executive summaries about what the drafts/RFCs contain would be nice as well, would probably also increase the amount of people reading them.
At least the IETF doesn't have pay walls, I definitely prefer the IETF model compared to ITU. Starting to comment and contribute on IETF lists is quite easy if you want to...
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
