RE: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?

[Andrew Allen <[e-mail]>]

IMHO a draft that identifies the current problems separate from the draft that proposes solutions is probably the best way forward. Then the discussion can first take place around reaching a consensus that there is a problem(s) that needs solving and isn't already addressed by existing work. 

Such drafts describing the problem and requirements for a solution are what is usually requested from 3GPP when 3GPP identify that some additional enhancements are required. For significant work a step wise approach is required to get to the final solution and the community has to be first convinced that there is a problem that is worth solving.

If there is consensus that there are problems to solve then it can be determined whether a solution can be achieved by small enhancements to existing protocols or whether a totally new protocol is needed and which WG should be assigned such work or whether a BOF is needed to establish a new WG to do the work. Only then should there be major discussion on the technical solution(s).

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 6:19 AM
To: Robert Wilton <[e-mail]>; Khaled Omar <[e-mail]>
Cc: ietf <[e-mail]>; rtgwg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?

Hi,

>As a relative newcomer to IETF, I can perhaps give two (hopefully
>positive) suggestions (sorry, none of which is technical):
>
>(1) From taking a very quick look at your drafts, it may be helpful to 
>have three sections at the top of the drafts that answer these 3 
>questions (before you describe the new protocols):
>   i) What is the problem that the draft is solving?
>   ii) Why the problem cannot be cleanly solved with existing 
>protocols/technology (which would normally be much cheaper than 
>designing a new protocol)?
>   iii) How does the new protocol/technology solves the problem?
>
>I.e. I think that you need to first convince the community that there 
>is a problem to be solved, before they will invest their time looking 
>at a solution.

Also, I think the Introduction section of the draft should answer (at least on a high-level) the 3 questions above, so that people don¹t have to read through the draft just to figure out the answers.

Regards,

Christer