Re: v 1.2, IETF material

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Since he cites our offline conversations, I want to express general
agreement with Stef's suggestions about the design team role.  As I 
indicated in one of those conversations, there are a few things that I
think, based on the recent experiences, are important:

  -- That we not try to ignore these kinds of efforts: it is important
that their existence be acknowledged and that they operate within some
clear framework.

  -- It is really less important what the specifics of that framework 
are than that it be there: we can all live with lots of different sorts of
arrangements, the problem is not knowing what the arrangements are.

  -- Clarity of intent, a clear point of passing of review and change
control [back] to the WG, and openness once that occurs are vital.  That
principle isn't contradictory to the notion of a new design team (which
might consist of the same people of the original one) going off and 
creating a new or revised contribution at some later point in the WG's
life.  In other words, there is a time for throwing things over the
wall.  But a design team operating as a semi-permanent private cabal
within, and in tension with, a WG creates many opportunities for the
confusion and misunderstandings that disrupt and delay work, rather than
facilitating progress.  [Note that I am not suggesting that this *cabal*
model has *ever* occurred, although it is clear from following IETF
transactions that the perception has arisen occasionally.]

   --john