IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Pesci-discuss] For whom it may concern..

"Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" <gash@att.com> Fri, 11 November 2005 03:13 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EaPLq-0003dq-RG; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:13:18 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EaPLm-0003cy-ST for pesci-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:13:17 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07147 for <pesci-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:12:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EaPc2-0005ix-OP for pesci-discuss@ietf.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:30:08 -0500
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: gash@att.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1131678779!6744624!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.9.1; banners=-,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [134.24.146.4]
Received: (qmail 4209 invoked from network); 11 Nov 2005 03:12:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO attrh3i.attrh.att.com) (134.24.146.4) by server-4.tower-121.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 11 Nov 2005 03:12:59 -0000
Received: from kcclust06evs1.ugd.att.com (135.38.164.89) by attrh3i.attrh.att.com (7.2.052) id 435BB4FA003A8212; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:12:59 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Pesci-discuss] For whom it may concern..
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:12:39 -0600
Message-ID: <9473683187ADC049A855ED2DA739ABCA09FA9661@KCCLUST06EVS1.ugd.att.com>
Thread-Topic: [Pesci-discuss] For whom it may concern..
Thread-Index: AcXmY561x2E0hmbjRyOHLFGhJembEwACIKdA
From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <gash@att.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, pesci-discuss@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc:
X-BeenThere: pesci-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Process Evolution Study Committee of the IETF discussion <pesci-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss>, <mailto:pesci-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pesci-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:pesci-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pesci-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pesci-discuss>, <mailto:pesci-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: pesci-discuss-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pesci-discuss-bounces@ietf.org

> I think Ted Hardie put
> his finger on something rather vital when he stated the need
> for more parallelism. For a community that builds high performance
> routers, this should be obvious. Regardless of formal process
> change, we need to increase parallelism.

Right.

To reiterate a proposal from a while ago
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg35135.html:

1. WG takes over full responsibility for RFC production ==> parallel
processing
2. IESG maintains RFC quality with uniform WG process created,
maintained, and enforced by IESG.

WG procedures would be developed to ensure RFC quality.  The procedures
would be created, maintained, and enforced by the IESG.  

I see no reason this couldn't be made to work, proof is that it works
like this, successfully, in other SDOs.

Jerry Ash

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email