The "late surprise" problem

[Bound, Jim]

But what we don't want is a totalitarian made up body that interferes
with progress.  People will leave the IETF and go do their work
elsewhere at a greater rate than currently.

/jim

 


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas at netcore.fi] 
>Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 12:57 AM
>To: Brian E Carpenter
>Cc: problem-statement at alvestrand.no
>Subject: Re: The "late surprise" problem
>
>
>On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Actually this is a solution proposal, which Dave Crocker and I have 
>> been discussing the last couple of days. I think it has 
>value, and it 
>> also illustrates what I think we have to do - find subsets of the 
>> total problem for which we can rapidly implement incremental 
>> solutions.
>
>Sounds rather interesting proposal.  However, such a check 
>should be made 
>earlier if possible -- before making any draft a working group 
>document, 
>for instance.  A side-effect of this is that the number of 
>documents is 
>higher.
>
>This would hopefully incur some clue injection early on in the 
>process, as well as spread the overall policy.
>
>"Review" is an ambiguous word here, intentionally or unintentionally.  
>What if the review is negative, advising against doing 
>something?  Does a 
>large enough number of "it's good" reviews annul "it's bad" reviews.
>
>-- 
>Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
>Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
>Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>
>
>
>