Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Design teams for mobileip--(sharif)

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:49:05 -0400 (EDT)

note that teh output of design teams is input for working groups - anything
that a design team does can be modified or undone by the WG

Scott

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:53:49 -0400

I suggest that RFC 2418 be amended (as is already followed by many WGs)
in view of the excessive use of DT's (making IETF look like ETSI, CCITT, etc.)
to mandate a WG approval of each DT and its closedness or opennes
and bring penalties for WG chairs who do not follow the rules
and also
mandatory vote of confidence in IETF meetings for WG chairs and ADs.

Food for thought.

--
Behcet

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:59:08 -0400 (EDT)

WOW.  A bit extreme even for me. We don't want WGs approving DT's.  DT's
as 2418 states can be a hallway conversation.  I think keeping a record of
DTs defined by the ADs with who was on them would be a very good idea
though.  That way if the DTs are always the same people we can see that.
One they are hard working, knowledgable, and will volunteer for stuff. Or
two they have the afforementioned traits but also part of the control
process for the IETF.  The second is the issue.

I believe the first step to an AD that breaks the rules or is otherwise
ill behaved is to contact the IESG Chair.  If not resolved then IAB appeal
and if still not resolved ISOC appeal.

/jim