Subject: RE: Working Group chartering

From: "Burger, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 02:10:38 -0500

IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea.
We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the idea will work.
We produce lots of half-baked documents with little basis in working
code.  Then folks try implementing what's been spec'ed, find it doesn't
work, but then find a ton of resistance to change, because the specs are
three years old and "we don't want to break draft-mumble-05
implementations."

If something is an idea, let's make it politically acceptable for the
"work" to be done in the I*R*TF first.

Yes, I agree that the process should be fuzzy - the AD should be able to
figure out if something is likely to work in the real world.  However,
building a work group out of an idea, rather than somewhat working code
or a demonstration framework, should be the exception, rather than the
rule. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Dave Crocker
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:13 PM
To: Jeffrey Hutzelman
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Working Group chartering

[snip]

And here is where we have the major disconnect.

Working groups start from a wide variety of places.  Some start with an
idea.  Some with a detailed proposal.  Some with a detailed
specification and some with existing and deployed technology.  When a
working group starts, it must make the strategic decision about how much
prior work to preserve, versus how much new work to encourage or
require.
[snip]

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

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:04:03 -0800

>three years old and "we don't want to break draft-mumble-05

I completely agree with you.
I wonder if we are in the minority opinion?
Standardize stuff that already works -- what a concept.

When we see a proposal without any "running code"
to back it up, we should be asking:
"If this is so good, then why aren't you using it yourself?"

>"work" to be done in the I*R*TF first.

I don't care how the technology gets developed.
IRTF, vendors, universities, whatever.  Show us
running code that's reasonably close to what you
want to standardize.  Let's get feedback from people who
have used the technology, too.

>or a demonstration framework, should be the exception, rather than the

Agreed, but I'm no fan of more process rules.
Area Directors who want to produce successful standards
will know how to make this decision.  ADs have to be tough
enough to say "Come back when you've done more work."

Andy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:10:40 -0800

>> IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea.
...
> Standardize stuff that already works -- what a concept.
...
> IRTF, vendors, universities, whatever.  

The current model in the IETF appears to be:  Your running code does suggest 
that this is worth pursuing.  So, now let's start all over, with no real concern 
for preserving that work and develop a fresh wish-list of features.

My suggestion is that we stop doing that, instead using the core of workers who 
are committed to delivering that running code, to define the requirements.  The 
community then gets to review potential problems with that work. 
Pseudo-problems, such as "it should do more things" and "I can't give you any 
specifics, but there might be problems" are out of bounds.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:25:42 -0800

...
...

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker