Re: The IETF environment

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On Friday, April 25, 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>>
>> With respect to getting work done, this is a bottom-up organization, not
>> a top-down one.  (That's why I think Area "Director" is a serious misnomer
>> and Area "Facilitator" would be far more accurate.)
>>
>>   But it seems pretty clear that people regard the IETF as
>>> a bit more than that. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, there is quite a bit of mythology about the IETF.  Sometimes it
>> borders on mysticism...
>>
>>  Bottom up is generally a good thing, and that's certainly been IETF's
> traditional modus operandi.  But... in that IETF is the official standard
> body for the Internet - and it's ultimately the standards that hold the
> Internet together -- isn't the real discussion about:
>
> 1. Are the emerging scale, scope, complexity, and issues involved in
> Internet operation/management/<your favorite term> highlighting the limits
> of that bottom-up (or perhaps, arms-length) approach to the way IETF is
> playing its role?


That role is done by IETF WGs, that makes WGs very important to represent
the approach of bottom-up-decision-making. Just or General Area has no
WGs!!!


>
> 2. Are there changes needed?


We need to think of our IETF areas more seriously, and we need some WGs in
the IETF general area to represent bottom-up-consultations. WGs that make
more procedure drafts for IETF within the big changes of the internet in
future.

AB


>
>
>