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
- [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions… Brian E Carpenter
- draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions Douglas Otis
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-newtrk-quest… Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-newtrk-quest… Keith Moore
- Re: draft-carpenter-newtrk-questions Douglas Otis