Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material")

John Curran <jcurran@nic.near.net> Sat, 05 December 1992 02:06 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15620; 4 Dec 92 21:06 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15611; 4 Dec 92 21:06 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24949; 4 Dec 92 21:07 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15606; 4 Dec 92 21:06 EST
Received: from nic.near.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24944; 4 Dec 92 21:07 EST
To: poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
cc: "James R. (Chuck) Davin" <davin@bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material")
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 04 Dec 92 18:37:28 -0500. <9212042337.AA09237@phila.bellcore.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1992 21:07:34 -0500
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: John Curran <jcurran@nic.near.net>
Message-ID: <9212042107.aa24944@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

--------
	From: "James R. (Chuck) Davin" <davin@bellcore.com>
	Subject: Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") 
	Date: Fri, 04 Dec 92 18:37:28 -0500
	
	The notion of "Design Teams" should not be formalized. When people get
	together in a small, informal, closed group to exchange ideas on
	technology, they are having fun and doing the community a service.
	When people get together in a small, formally recognized, closed group
	for the purpose of producing an agreed specification destined for
	promulgation as a standard, they may be in violation of Federal law.
	...

If we do not recognize a formal relationship between WG's and 
design teams, then we should at least provide some guidelines for 
how "significant contributions developed outside of the WG process" 
should be handled when brought into a WG for consideration.

We don't have to tackle this issue immediately, but it's probably a 
good idea to put it on the agenda for "poised II".

/John