> COOK: good lord keith.... Surely stef's whole point is that the
> Area Directors, IESG, and IAB need only accept work that WAS good
> enough from THEIR own point of view.
>
> it sounds like you are saying that it simply is not possible to
> construct anything that could even merit IETF review unless you did
> the construction from scratch within all the channels of the IETF?
No, I'm only saying that it's wrong to encourage people to do their
work independently of IETF if they want/expect IETF to endorse it.
When other groups do standards work, that work should bear the name
of the group that did the work. IETF's name should not be used to
lend credibility to other groups.
> If so it sounds like you are determined to keep the views of the
> current AD's, IESG and IAB as a gate through which ALL ideas must
> pass and are saying that it is flat out impossible for anyone to
> develop working code that could pass the scrutiny test.
Not at all. I'm just saying that we shouldn't call it IETF work when
it's done elsewhere.
Keith