IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Pesci-discuss] Question: stability of IAB

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Wed, 19 October 2005 09:56 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESAgQ-0001HC-Ph; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:56:30 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ESAgP-0001D2-ME for pesci-discuss@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:56:29 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA03537 for <pesci-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:56:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org ([69.25.196.178] helo=carter-zimmerman.mit.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESAs7-0005hF-5m for pesci-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 06:08:36 -0400
Received: by carter-zimmerman.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 99E14E0038; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:56:28 -0400 (EDT)
To: pesci-discuss@ietf.org
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:56:28 -0400
Message-ID: <tslk6g9rfsj.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Subject: [Pesci-discuss] Question: stability of IAB
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


This is a question submitted as an individual.

One of the claims made in the current draft is that the IAB would
remain relatively stable throughout process change.

Have people carefully considered the the effectiveness of the IAB in
its architectural role?  Are people being quiet and not proposing
change because things are working fine and the IAB is providing
valuable architectural guidance just the way we need it?  Or are
people being quiet because the IAB is not in the way?

I don't know what the answer is, but I think it important to consider
carefully before deciding the IAB's role is stable.


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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email