Standards

[James Kempf]

Dave,

I agree with these points. One question:

> 1)  A PS is supposed to have no "known" errors.  However there is nothing
> that says that a PS is required to try to solve any particular scope of
> requirement.
>
> That is, a PS is allowed to tackle a very narrow problem, if the PS will
> in fact do something useful.  Narrow scope makes it easier to do things
> in a more timely fashion and with a better understanding of what is
> being done.
>
> Instead, we currently see WGs try to carve off and solve problems with
> very large scope.
>
>

I don't think that trying to get a PS to focus on a narrow enough problem should
deter IETF from trying to solve hard problems, do you? That WGs with large scope
are having difficulty suggests to me that well defined, narrowly focussed
problem statements are more likely to lead to success than large, unfocussed
ones, at least, if IETF wants to keep its current relatively flat hierarchical
structure.

Or do you think that IETF should defer developing new technology, with its
attendant need to solve hard problems, to other groups and concentrate on
standardizing existing technology?

            jak