Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"

Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> Thu, 29 November 2012 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <gih@apnic.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3260F11E80A3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:56:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eu2zEYKIJm55 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:56:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A73B311E809B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:56:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:388:1000:110:38dd:f84e:9488:5278] (unknown [IPv6:2001:388:1000:110:38dd:f84e:9488:5278]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D78B6744; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 12:56:17 +1000 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
From: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>
In-Reply-To: <50B63CA3.4040907@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:56:17 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D0EF612C-DFF5-4D16-BA96-F65204CC1CB2@apnic.net>
References: <CAC4RtVCogYS4tmY1LLi0C-E+B+di2_wTD0N-=AZrVR7-A8Mz+A@mail.gmail.com> <20121127231404.GC1941@verdi> <m2mwy26iud.wl%randy@psg.com> <50B63CA3.4040907@cisco.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 02:56:20 -0000

On 29/11/2012, at 3:32 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:

> 
> On 11/28/12 12:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens _before_
>>> adoption as a WG draft.
>> and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
>> process.
>> 
> 
> But this isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It's nice to have reasonably
> well thought out ideas come in.
> 

Which then become highly defined precepts that become incredibly resistant to IETF change on the basis that they have been well thought out already (and probably are IPR-ridden) and at that stage the IETF process is functionally reduced to rubber stamping. At that stage the value of the IETF imprimatur becomes highly dubious to the industry its meant to serve.

It's not clear to me if this idea of taking in 'mature' work is altogether a good thing.