Re: Two step, three step, one step, and alternatives

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Saturday, November 13, 2010 08:45 +0100 Eliot Lear
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 11/13/10 12:01 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> For protocol specs, our normal way to sort of competing and
>> variant proposals is to form a WG.  We know that doesn't work
>> well for procedural documents.
>> 
>> Partially as an experiment, would you consider creating a
>> separate list, pointing the discussion there, and appointing a
>> rapporteur or two with responsibility for figuring out when
>> discussions have stabilized and then coming back to the IETF
>> list with a summary of that stability point, tradeoffs, etc.?
>> 
> Call it what you will, this sounds like NEWTRK revisited.
> What will be different?

At least three things... maybe.

	First, I/we have been told repeatedly that this is a new
	IESG and that, even were we to revisit NEWTRK exactly,
	we might well see a different result.
	
	Second, one of the problems with WGs for this sort of
	issue is that they meet and have conflicts with WGs that
	are doing protocol work, thereby ending up with a very
	selected sample of the IETF population as participants.
	I'm proposing a discussion --basically exactly the
	discussion that is occurring on the IETF list only with
	more focus and an organized reporting process-- not a WG.
	
	Third, we might actually have learned some things since
	NEWTRK.  Even the current version of the most ambitious
	NEWTRK proposal --the ISD one-- contains a very
	different and less burdensome transition model.

And the alternative you would propose is?

    john