----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "grenville armitage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 10:37 AM Subject: Re: Proposal for a revised procedure-making process for the IETF
> > Well, that is an experimental question. My feeling is that if a specific > > process question comes up - let's say, a proposal to increase IAB > > membership to 99 seats, to create a silly example - we could have a > > much more focussed discussion in the "iab99" WG with a very limited > > charter than has proved possible in recent years in Poisson. > > Problem is, process questions are not always that specific. If for > example there were a growing sense that WGs take too long, that IESG > approves too many broken documents, and that too many WGs are having > an adverse effect on the Internet architecture - the solution to > this problem might somehow involve IETF process, but we would not be > likely to find a solution by chartering a WG that is centered around > someone's draft proposal. > > Keith > What is the "Internet Architecture" ? Is there a picture somewhere ? The "toy" IPv4 Internet is a sewer. IPv8 is designed to be a swamp to cover the sewer. IPv16 is the "high-ground".... ...here are some links... Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com Mars 128n 128e http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html
