kempf at docomolabs-usa.com
Wed Jan 8 09:10:27 CET 2003
> I assumed that this list was about creating a problem statement for
> current percieved problems with the IETF process. Delving to deep
> into what other SDOs do or don't do is probably a huge rathole.
> It might be that you are implying that there are Internet problems which
> may need fixing, but I think that is still another problem.
> I am currently more concerned about the effectiveness of the IETF; standards
> are taking a longer time to produce which has a direct effect upon deployment
> and potentially creates problems; especially in the cases where a protocol
> is trying to fix a hole or an existing problem.
> Additionally, I do have some concerns about the transparency of the process -
> though there are some steps being taken to fix this.
I'm sorry, I think this is directly relevent to the list's discussion topic. My
message was in response to Marshall's proposal for the IETF to not do any
architecture work and just do engineering for other SDOs that bring their
architecture and requirements to IETF, but I believe this has in fact been
happening for some time now with respect to 3GPP, and I believe it has led to
some significant problems, and a monumental increase in work load for the ADs as
they do the technical liason. The ADs, WG chairs, and WG members not associated
with the other SDO could simply roll over and not push back on requests that
violate basic Internet architectural principles, but, to their credit, the folks
involved in the 3GPP liason have not done that. Rather, they have attempted to
educate 3GPP on why the Internet architecture is as it is and also tried to show
3GPP how their requirements could be met in a way that is consistent with the
Internet architecuture. But this comes at a massive cost in time for the ADs.
So if IESG work overload is a problem, then this is one contributing factor.
More information about the Problem-statement