Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC

[Spencer Dawkins]

I could not agree more (except to emend Brian's quote as "encourage
the IESG and the IETF community as a whole to continue the work").

Without reference to the additional problems raised recently, the
current draft seems sufficient to have kicked off at least four or
five problem resolution efforts (MPOWR, ART, NEWTRK - aren't there
others?). If these efforts bear fruit, identifying other problems is
worthwhile (and there's no reason individuals can't submit drafts on
them now). If not, having a perfect embalmed list of problems that the
IETF used to have, when it was still around, is not.

At the risk of assuming something from a face-to-face meeting, it
seemed in Minneapolis that the working group's energy has moved on.
Continued fiddling with the document risks turning it into the list of
problems that the group should have identified, whether it did or not.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc at zurich.ibm.com>
To: "Alex Conta" <aconta at txc.com>
Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>; <iesg at ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC


> Alex,
>
> My personal goal is not to have the document as complete as it can
be,
> but to encourage the IESG to continue the work it has started to
> fix the most serious problems.
>
>    Brian