Subject: Effecting major infrastructure change RE: I'm not the microphone police, but ...

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:09:48 -0700

> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter

> > These communities may not even be SDOs - they can be operator 
> > consortia,
> > vendor consortia, industry consortia, or Lord knows what.
> 
> Ah, but those we can simply treat as individual 
> contributions, because there is no reason to do otherwise.

For the cases where there is a major infrastructure change that needs to
be achieved I would like to see a more interactive process. At present
the development model is a bunch of boffins go out into a shed, build
something and then ask the customer if they like it.

This process has not really worked for IPv6 or DNSSEC and I don't think
it is likely to work for BGPSecurity either.

One problem here is that there is no way that any shed is ever going to
be big enough to fit in all the parties that might have a stake in the
outcome.

Rather than treating the inputs from other organizations as individual
contributions I would like to see groups that have major infrastructure
change have a process available for formally soliciting input from the
various consortia where the stakeholders whose participation is
essential tend to meet.

As with any focus group there can never be an expectation that the
eventual solution will meet all of the requirements, but even if it does
not people prefer to be asked than ignored. 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 23:01:42 +0200

> it is likely to work for BGPSecurity either.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a better way to do it.  
(Having a new standard imposed by the government would be more  
efficient, but still not "better".)

What kind of trouble are you expecting with BGP security, by the way?

> be big enough to fit in all the parties that might have a stake in the

That's a feature. The people are in the shed to brainstorm or work  
out boring but important details. Neither of those work in groups  
that are big enough encompass all possible stakeholders.

The people in the shed don't automatically get consensus, they have  
to convince the larger group that their work has merit. So when they  
come up with something bad, they've mostly wasted their own time and  
know better in the future.

> various consortia where the stakeholders whose participation is

Sounds an awful lot like the way ICANN does things. Although this way  
of doing things allows for additional decisiveness, it also adds a  
lot of contention after the fact.