Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

Margaret.Wasserman at Margaret.Wasserman at
Sun Nov 2 22:33:47 CET 2003

> In fact, if you go back to the archives of the 1992 
> discussions, it was perceived then that the previous 
> structure did not scale. For example, the IAB was in 
> charge of reviewing every RFC before it could be
> published, and as the number of WG increased that 
> became a bottleneck. A lot of the 1992 effort was about 
> designing a structure that would scale better -- i.e. 
> scale for much more than the 600-700 participants at the
> time.

In what way is the current structure substantially
different from this?  Instead of the IAB, the IESG
now reviews every IETF-produced RFC before it is 
published, and we also manage the WGs.

My understanding is that the primary effect of the
1992 change was to unite document review (which had
been done by the IAB) and WG/process management (which
had been done by the IESG) in a single group (the

How would that improve scaling?


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list