[Nea] use of a design team to develop requirements

[Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>]

Stephen & Susan,

I really have to question the use of a design team to develop 
requirements for the NEA WG.  A lot of the strength of the IETF process 
has traditionally been from its inclusiveness.  Experience suggests that 
this is most beneficial in two areas - one is determining requirements 
and design considerations (the more people who have input into these, 
the more chances there are to spot important considerations that might 
otherwise have been overlooked) and another is in reviewing documents 
(the more reviewers, the greater the chance that a flaw in the document 
is discovered).

It's generally a good thing to have a small team to be selected as 
editors of a document, but IMHO, not so good to make that team 
responsible for actually determining requirements.  If that is really 
the intent, I think this will tend to impair the ability of the WG to 
produce a sound set of requirements, particularly when there are a 
number of dubious assumptions already included in the WG's charter.

Particularly given that the list has essentially been silent since the 
design team was announced, and also given that the design team was 
formed before much discussion had taken place here, it's hard to escape 
the impression that the parameters of the solution are being dictated 
rather than determined by WG consensus, and before the problem is even 
well understood.  I do not believe it is sufficient to have a design 
team develop requirements in isolation and then to have the WG ratify them.

Keith


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