On 2011-03-04 06:51, Russ Housley wrote:
> Nurit:
>
>>> Not to mention including the canard that the IETF unilaterally disbanded
>>> "its group assigned to work with ITU" in 2009. Others with more detailed
>>> knowledge can explain exactly why this is, er, a lie.
>> Here are some facts:
>> ===================
>> I was member of the MEAD team.
>> A meeting of the MEAD team was scheduled to meet in Munich
>> 12-14 October 2009. It was scheduled right after an ITU-T
>> SG15 plenary meeting (September 28 - October 9) because
>> MEAD team members attended that meeting too.
>>
>> On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD
>> team for the meeting in Munich on the MEAD team list m...@ietf.org.
>> On Monday October 5th an email was sent to m...@ietf.org
>> announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team, and that the
>> meeting in Munich should not be considered a MEAD team meeting.
>>
>> The decision to disband the MEAD team was liaised to the ITU-T
>> on the same day (October 5).
>>
>> Do I need to say more.
>
> It does not sound like the shutdown of the MEAD team was smooth. However,
> the closure of a design team when their output is being handled by a working
> group is quite normal.
That's the point. A design team is always a short term mechanism and once it
reports back to the WG, it closes down. Not having been personally
involved, I can't judge whether the process was clear to those involved,
especially people with more experience in ITU-T than in the IETF.
Just so we are all talking about the same thing, here is the official
description from BCP 25 (RFC 2418):
"6.5. Design teams
It is often useful, and perhaps inevitable, for a sub-group of a
working group to develop a proposal to solve a particular problem.
Such a sub-group is called a design team. In order for a design team
to remain small and agile, it is acceptable to have closed membership
and private meetings. Design teams may range from an informal chat
between people in a hallway to a formal set of expert volunteers that
the WG chair or AD appoints to attack a controversial problem. The
output of a design team is always subject to approval, rejection or
modification by the WG as a whole."
In other words, what counts in the IETF process is the WG consensus,
not the design team consensus. There are cases where the WG refuses or
significantly changes the design team proposal; RFC 3246 and RFC 3248
make a good example.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
