Re: draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions

Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org> Sun, 11 June 2006 15:10 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FpRa7-0002BK-BZ; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 11:10:27 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FpRa5-0002BF-Vl for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 11:10:25 -0400
Received: from a.mail.sonic.net ([64.142.16.245]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FpRa3-0006Vx-Nj for ietf@ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 11:10:25 -0400
Received: from [192.168.2.11] (64-142-13-68.dsl.static.sonic.net [64.142.13.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by a.mail.sonic.net (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k5BF9wO4009142 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:09:59 -0700
From: Douglas Otis <dotis@mail-abuse.org>
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
In-Reply-To: <448C14EC.7060608@cs.utk.edu>
References: <448A7209.7080700@zurich.ibm.com> <B2946965-AD62-40CC-A7A6-F3690C80C518@cs.columbia.edu> <448C14EC.7060608@cs.utk.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:09:46 -0700
Message-Id: <1150038587.29085.38.camel@bash.adsl-64-142-13-68>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-4.fc4)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Sun, 2006-06-11 at 09:04 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> The general circumstances under which IETF has trouble designing new 
> protocols are either or both of these:  1. When there are substantial 
> conflicts between major industry players about strategic direction in 
> that area.  2. When the working group set up to design this protocol
> has poorly-defined or inappropriately-defined scope.

While agreeing, this problem is not unique, nor does this directly
relate to the questions raised.  Stable document references for an
endeavour can focus dialog, either by the IETF or by others.  Being more
transparent may increase participation, where adding clarity appears to
be a goal of newtrk.

Part of the issue is the complexity created by the number of documents.
While smaller documents representing components of a larger system
should be a way to address the maintenance and scoping issues, a desire
to combat the extremely difficult use of disparate, non-sequential
document references has forced a consolidation detrimental to forward
progress. 

-Doug


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf