Re: [Pesci-discuss] Question: stability of IAB

I'll come back to the general question later, but I'd
suggest this is a fine place to separate discussion of
the problem from solutions (or a particular solution).

1/ Problem:  cross area review -- not happening enough

2/ Potential solution: closed group does the review/manages
the review.

3/ Specific instance of potential solution:  the IAB is repurposed
to be that closed group.

There's plenty of room (and need) for discussion of 1/ and
2/ before getting distracted with discusion of 3/, IMO.

Leslie.

Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>>"Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> 
>     Brian> Sam Hartman wrote:
>     >> This is a question submitted as an individual.
> 
>     Brian> Attempting to answer as an individual, although one with a
>     Brian> number of IAB-years in hand.
> 
>     >> One of the claims made in the current draft is that the IAB
>     >> would remain relatively stable throughout process change.
> 
>     Brian> I think one reason for that assumption is that the IAB
>     Brian> isn't on the critical path for the standards process,
>     Brian> except in the appeals case.  It is of course involved in a
>     Brian> consultative role in WG formation and many other places,
>     Brian> but it clearly isn't part of (for example) the generic
>     Brian> slowness problem.
> 
> 
> No, but for example it may be part of the solution to the early
> cross-area review problem.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pesci-discuss mailing list
> Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss
> 

_______________________________________________
Pesci-discuss mailing list
Pesci-discuss@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss