Ownership and "cross-licensing" of protocols by working groups

[Charlie Perkins]

Hello again folks,

While reading section 2.3, I remembered a terrible problem
with cross-working-group interactions.  Suppose that working
group A standardizes protocol A, and that working group B
needs the functionality of protocol A for the operation of the
protocol that is to become protocol B.  One would think it should
be natural for WG-B to build on the work within WG-A.  In fact,
one would think that WG-A would actively encourage the work
of WG-B.  Unfortunately, this obvious strategy fails in practice,
for reasons that are unreasonably tedious and counterproductive
to the point of daffiness.

What happens, is that WG-A can, and does, refuse to ratify
even the most minor changes needed by WG-B.  Then, WG-B
has to go back to the drawing boards, losing valuable time and/or
features.

Specific areas where I have seen this occur include:
- security(IPsec), and
- neighborhood determination in IPv6
I would be amazed if these are the only examples.

Therefore for self-preservation, an IETF working group
should _never_ try to use a protocol for which it does not
own complete change control.

Or else, we could have a statement by the IAB that mandated
more flexibility by working groups whose outputs MIGHT be
useful by someone else in the universe.  I exaggerate.  mea culpa.
I get aggravated thinking about it.

Regards,
Charlie P.