Natale, Robert C (Bob)
bnatale at lucent.com
Wed Jan 8 02:20:36 CET 2003
Responding here to excerpts from two separate postings
you made recently:
> so, i just don't have a problem letting other entities doing
> macro-engineering, because i think the IETF can figure out how well the
> thing fits. and there are some good examples of this where thing have
> shown up at the IETF via the BOF mechanism and the IAB has produced
> useful documents explaining architecture issues which are used both by
> the IESG in deciding what to charter, and by the resulting WG management
> in guiding the WG activity.
While I think the first sentence of your statement is somewhat
debatable when considering "the IETF" as a whole, I definitely
like the rest of it. All I am really pushing for on this thread
is a bit more effort and spirit, in proactive time frames, put
into those kinds of activates.
> so, i think we agree in that we need to develop an infrastructure to
> work on "macro-architecture", but i really want to emphasize it needs to
> be done outside of the IETF's existing WG structure...
Ok...I can buy that...but it's not just "to work on" architectural
guidance (wrt which I agree with your other comments about the
IETF having a pretty good base in place)...one of the "problems"
that this particular thread addresses is that the existing
architectural guidance has not been *applied* consistently and
early enough in many instances and that this trend is increasing
with time. To put it in a one-liner: I'd like to see us make
it possible for the leadership to do more leading.
More information about the Problem-statement