On 2/6/15 8:25 AM, Carter Bullard wrote: > Benson, > I apologize if I’m way off base here, but it seems to me that the first task > that > the working group took on is unfinished. The IETF doesn’t normally charter > WGs > to generate I-D’s, normally the task is to generate RFCs. And of course > the probability of the WG generating an RFC on its second charter, is probably > equal to the WGs ability to generate RFC’s on its first.
I don't think this is quite fair and I don't think it's particularly accurate. RFCs are expensive to publish, in terms of the level of effort required from a large number of people, ranging from working group participants to the IESG to the RFC editor. Furthermore, since resource are badly constrained, doing one thing means taking resources away from another. Right now, the IETF is quite bogged down and it's taking years to get useful specifications through the process and into publication. Because of this it is not at all clear to me that taking resources away from publishing protocol specs to publish more requirements/problem statement/etc. documents is a very good tradeoff. Requirements documents are primarily *useful* to people who develop protocols, etc. They aren't that useful to implementers (I don't think I've ever gone back and looked at a requirements document while implementing a protocol - I look at the specifications). I think it's very clearly in the interest of pretty much everybody but the requirements document editors (because of their interest in getting an RFC published with their names on it) to be a bit more flexible so that we can have a somewhat more nimble IETF. Melinda _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
