IMHO a draft that identifies the current problems separate from the draft that proposes solutions is probably the best way forward. Then the discussion can first take place around reaching a consensus that there is a problem(s) that needs solving and isn't already addressed by existing work.
Such drafts describing the problem and requirements for a solution are what is usually requested from 3GPP when 3GPP identify that some additional enhancements are required. For significant work a step wise approach is required to get to the final solution and the community has to be first convinced that there is a problem that is worth solving. If there is consensus that there are problems to solve then it can be determined whether a solution can be achieved by small enhancements to existing protocols or whether a totally new protocol is needed and which WG should be assigned such work or whether a BOF is needed to establish a new WG to do the work. Only then should there be major discussion on the technical solution(s). Andrew -----Original Message----- From: ietf [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 6:19 AM To: Robert Wilton <[email protected]>; Khaled Omar <[email protected]> Cc: ietf <[email protected]>; rtgwg <[email protected]> Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously? Hi, >As a relative newcomer to IETF, I can perhaps give two (hopefully >positive) suggestions (sorry, none of which is technical): > >(1) From taking a very quick look at your drafts, it may be helpful to >have three sections at the top of the drafts that answer these 3 >questions (before you describe the new protocols): > i) What is the problem that the draft is solving? > ii) Why the problem cannot be cleanly solved with existing >protocols/technology (which would normally be much cheaper than >designing a new protocol)? > iii) How does the new protocol/technology solves the problem? > >I.e. I think that you need to first convince the community that there >is a problem to be solved, before they will invest their time looking >at a solution. Also, I think the Introduction section of the draft should answer (at least on a high-level) the 3 questions above, so that people don¹t have to read through the draft just to figure out the answers. Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
