Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > While I do have some ideas, I'd rather not skew the discussion by > throwing those out right now. I will also report back here after > the IESG discussion.
> And just as a reminder, we've used this list mostly for very
> initial discussions and seen all chunky items of work handled
> elsewhere, be that in current WGs or by forming new WGs or
> whatever. I think that's been a good mode of operation so far,
> so we're not really asking here about how to change that, but
> rather for discussion of which topics we can usefully try handle
> in that same way over the coming year or two.
I think that the items have been correctly chunked off, and I think that
waiting is not yet complete, so we can not yet grok what the next step is.
I think that the ACME work is very significant, and once it is further along,
I think that extending it into non-web-server realms is important.
The biggest issue that I see in the perpass space has been persistent market
failures of some of our key technologies. Not entirely our problem, but each
time I see an industry "consortia" write a specification behind closed doors
that is more than a list of RFCs, I think we have failed. Among groups that
I have observed the Broadband Forum has done the best job in my opinion.
This is very much a case where there has been a significant gap between what
we specify, and what there are resources to actually implement *AND*
deploy. I wish that the consortia could be involved in funding and
coordinating open source reference implementations. The Eclipse and Apache
foundations are sometimes really good at this, but they also seem to go and
invent new specifications at times for reasons I think has more to do who is
funding them than what is needed.
So my message to the IESG for your retreat is: how can the IETF better
leverage ISOC's contacts and marketing efforts... How can we make IETF work
(including
"running code") more relevant to things like Tenure Track committees... can
we "infiltrate" NSF-like entities in various places. Many ccTLD entities
seem to have money to spend on infrastructure initiatives (CIRA, nic.cz,
nic.nl, nic.mx are the ones I know about)... maybe there could be some overt
coordination here.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
