Quality of WG Output (Was: RE: OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track)

[James Kempf]

Margaret,

Well stated. Introduction of more structured, formal reviews at a
selected, very fiew points in the development process could help to
reduce the late suprise factor. Of course, it is possible to go
overboard and slow down the development with too much process, so care
is needed.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Margaret Wasserman" <mrw at windriver.com>
To: <Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com>
Cc: <randy at psg.com>; <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>;
<pekkas at netcore.fi>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 1:05 PM
Subject: Quality of WG Output (Was: RE: OPEN ISSUE: Standards Track)


>
> Hi Basavaraj,
>
> At 01:55 PM 5/22/2003 -0500, Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com wrote:
> >Maybe. But the key lesson to be learn here is that the Mobile IP WG
> >spent about 3 years or more before the IESG said that the security
> >solution based on IPsec was broken. The timeline to arrive at such
> >a conclusion is a serious problem for any standards work.
>
> I agree that it is a serious problem that there was no
> adequate security review of this proposal for three
> years while it was being processed by the WG.
>
> But, I don't think that this is a problem with:
>
>          - The IESG, or
>          - The IETF standards track.
>
> Instead, I consider this a problem with the quality
> processes (or lack thereof) used by our WGs.  We
> need to find ways to make sure that documents are
> adequately reviewed during different phases of
> WG development, so that these "late surprises" don't
> occur.  In other words, we need to determine ways
> to increase the quality and integrity of WG output.
>
> This is dealt with in the problem statement
> and the process document in the discussion of WG
> engineering practices.
>
> Margaret
>
>
>
>