Cross-Area Review (was: Fwd: RE: A follow up question

Pekka Savola pekkas at
Fri Apr 25 13:33:49 CEST 2003

On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> One of the questions here is why the mechanisms that we have today
> don't always work.
> We have open review of WG charters, where cross-area issues
> really ought to be identifiable.
> Are we lacking something a bit later in the process, after a WG effort
> has been started but before its results have crystallized?

It seems to me that there is a significant gap between "Create Foo 
Architecture" as noted in the charter (or some other rather generic 
description in it) and with "IESG received a document with a non-sense 
solution for Foo Architecture".

Of course, some WG charters (Keith might say e.g. zeroconf wrt.  
link-scoped IPv4 unicast addresses) could give hints already that the WG
may be working on a dubious area from the start.

However, it may be difficult to argue, at the chartering point when few or
no concrete proposals or text is on the table, why the approach seems
unfit -- or more appropriately, to ultimately have IESG give enough weight
to such arguments if there are other folks who loudly state they want to
do the work.

[some review prior to W.G. doc adoption would seem natural to me, however
it may be difficult to implement it scalably]

Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list