WG Last Call on IETF Problem Statement (small proposal toexpandtext in sections 2.2 and 2.3)

Spencer Dawkins spencer at mcsr-labs.org
Wed Sep 17 17:05:31 CEST 2003


My opinion is not unbiased (I'm on the editor's team), but I would
prefer to actually do something about the problems we've identified in
the more-than-year since Yokohama.

We have added one new root cause since the list was created in March.
This doesn't mean "there are no other problems", and it doesn't mean
we have wasted time in discussions since then, but it does mean that
we have a stable set of root causes as the basis for change. Further
massaging of the list is not required for us to start making changes,
and (since we're unlikely to make one set of perfect changes anyway,
so must keep our eyes open in the future), anything missing probably
isn't on the critical path to making changes.

If it is, and we've missed it in six months of fairly intense mailing
list and face-to-face discussions, I'd be surprised.

The level of rigor for a problem statement for process change does not
need to be as high as it is for a Proposed Standard protocol spec.

IMHO.

Spencer

> >
> > We can never list all of the problems. There are too many.  We
need to
> limit
> > the list or we will never complete it.
>
> Not true - What we need to break the list into several lists. That
is to
> create listso of associated problems specific to a conceptual area.
Like
> problems with the "Posting Model" and "Participation Models" in the
WG's.
> The problem with the current list is that it is all encompassing and
as such
> it is too large. But if it was broken down into smaller areas of
concern the
> work-product documents would be more manageable and of a more
digestable set
> of goals (at least IMHO).



More information about the Problem-statement mailing list