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

[Brian E Carpenter]

Bert, they are free to do it today, but the problem is
the ones who don't.

However, I would rather fix this problem with a carrot
than with a stick (hence the SIRs draft).

   Brian

"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> 
> Mmmm... maybe this is just me...
> 
> But what is wrong with WG members and WG chairs to seek
> early help from the Security Area Advisors and ADs or
> from some specific WG in the security area?
> 
> I.e. WG chairs should feel free to try and find help in
> other places in the IETF.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf at docomolabs-usa.com]
> > Sent: donderdag 22 mei 2003 22:38
> > To: Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com; Margaret Wasserman
> > Cc: randy at psg.com; problem-statement at alvestrand.no; pekkas at netcore.fi
> > Subject: Re: Quality of WG Output (Was: RE: OPEN ISSUE:
> > Standards Track)
> >
> >
> > 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
> > >