Discipline of Internet Protocol Engineering
dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Jun 3 16:27:25 CEST 2003
Excellent points to raise. Each warrants its own thread, so I'm
splitting my response(s).
KM> 1. We need to define the discipline of Internet Protocol Engineering.
KM> By that, I mean we need to enumerate a series of steps that should
KM> normally be followed, more or less in order, when developing or modifying a
KM> protocol for use on the Internet.
Hmmm. We have "guidelines" for working group process. Perhaps you are
suggesting "guidelines" for protocol development? Not a small task, but
certainly a useful one.
KM> The reason I say this is that several groups have demonstrated the inability
KM> to define the problem they are working on,
Unfortunately, i think this problem is deeper than we might wish to
acknowledge. I tend to be a charter fascist, on the theory that a
crystal clear charter will leave no doubt about the problem being
solved, and/or the benefit to be derived from the result and the
deliverables to be produced.
I view charters as real contracts, making clear what is included and
obligated and what is excluded and prohibited.
However with great regularity, remarkably fuzzy charters are getting
approved. since chartering involves lots of experienced people beyond
the working group, we can't simply assess the problem on the working
I don't know how to improve this. But, yes, we definitely need to keep
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>
More information about the Problem-statement