Re: RPC working group

[Paul Mockapetris <[e-mail]>]

> > If someone wishes to argue
> > 
> > 	"You shoulda given up sooner"
> > 
> > then I claim that's an easy thing to say in hindsight, albeit
> > possibly true in retrospect. 
> 
> fix the problem, not the blame.  it's the IESG's job to make things
> work.  cowering behind the skirts of 1602, or the legendary incompetence
> of the ISOc, isn't exactly what i would view as a good defense.

I really don't see how this message helps to fix the problem, not the
blame.  The problem is that the WGs, IETF, IESG, aren't qualified to
do legal work, and were trying to do it.  The ISOC wouldn't help or
stand behind us.  The two ways out of it were (1) stop doing legal
things and (2) pass the blame to the IAB.  We could have easily asked
for a process waiver and watched them go chew on that.

The social contract would have been a solution, but it really would
have been in the same realm as asking the IAB to create a waiver, in
that we would still be responsible for advancing something to a
standard which didn't follow 1602.  Creating standards benefits those
who think mighty standards are good.  I don't think that's really the
IETF objective.  The IETF should create proposed, draft, and full
"good things" and let the ISOC worry about whether the legal work is
done.  We should let those who want to play at standards take the risks.

> > But the culture is one where people continue to work on hard
> > problems attempting to resolve them, and they don't give up easily.
> 
> with the exception, of course, of the IESG.

paul
 
USC/Information Sciences Institute      phone: [phone] x285
4676 Admiralty Way, Marina del Rey, CA  fax:   [phone]
90292