Re: Do you want to have more meetings outside US ?

[Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>]

Simon Josefsson wrote:

> Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> writes:
>  
>
> > Even further, how about breaking up the IETF into smaller, more agile
> > standards development organizations? We essentially did that with XMPP
> > by using the XMPP Standards Foundation for extensions to XMPP rather
> > than doing all our work at the IETF (given the large number of XMPP
> > extensions, doing all that work at the IETF would have represented a
> > denial of service attack on the Internet Standards Process). I see a few
> > potential benefits here:
> >
> > 1. Greater focus on rough consensus and running code.
> >
> > 2. Fewer bureaucracy headaches.
> >
> > 3. Reduced workload for our stressed-out IESG members. :)
> >
> > Just a thought...
> >    
> I think that is a good idea.  The IETF could provide guidelines for
> self-organizing group efforts, such as mailing list policy, IPR
> templates, bug tracker, conflict resolution systems, etc, and let people
> standardize ideas and even experiment with implementations.  When such
> efforts are successful, the technical work can be guided through the
> IETF process (potentially changing the design to fix problems).
>  
The danger here is that when people bring work to IETF, they might 
refuse to change protocols which are already deployed.

And speaking of cross area review again: last thing I want is to be 
forced to go to multiple smaller meetings in various other organizations 
instead of attending 3 IETF meetings per-year.

> I think we've seen several examples of where the IETF has spent
> significant amount of energy, ranging from heated discussions to
> specification work, on solutions that simply won't fly.  It would be
> useful if that energy waste could be reduced.  Having 'running code' as
> a barrier for serious consideration within the IETF may be one approach.
>  
I agree that running code should be given extra weight, but I am not 
sure that running code should be a requirement for something which is 
not well understood yet (some Lemonade WG documents come to mind).


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf