At 04:26 24/06/2006, Keith Moore wrote:
Heaven forbid the internet Engineering task force should actually do
engineering. Remember engineering? That's the discipline of
producing efficient designs that meet predetermined goals and requirements.
IETF is already plunging toward irrelevance at
On 24-jun-2006, at 4:26, Keith Moore wrote:
IETF is already plunging toward irrelevance at terminal velocity.
The only way to
arrest the descent is for it to start producing better quality and
more relevant
specifications. A good start would be for it to actually pay some
attention to the
> Such as, a requirement for formal cross-area review of the design
> goals document and of preliminary specifications as a prerequisite
> before producing a reference implementation.
The IETF standards process is already so slow and uncertain that
people throw up their hands in exasperation and
On 24 Jun 2006 10:58:31 -
John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Such as, a requirement for formal cross-area review of the design
> > goals document and of preliminary specifications as a prerequisite
> > before producing a reference implementation.
>
> The IETF standards process is alr
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:26:23 +0200
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24-jun-2006, at 4:26, Keith Moore wrote:
>
> > IETF is already plunging toward irrelevance at terminal velocity. The
> > only way to arrest the descent is for it to start producing better
> > quality and mo
On 24-jun-2006, at 15:05, Keith Moore wrote:
I don't think the solution is more hoops to jump through. Unless I'm
mistaken, the IESG already has significant lattitude in rejecting
protocols or imposing additional requirements.
By the time IESG gets around to reviewing things, more often than
> The IETF wgs work well when there is a clear "best" solution or set
> of more or less equivalent best solutions. As far as I can tell, the
> wg process and the IETF process in general have a hard time working
> well when there is no clear best solution so several interests must
> be trade
> > The IETF standards process is already so slow and uncertain that
> > people throw up their hands in exasperation and go around it.
>
> True. Which is why it's necessary to handle the reviews in a pipelined
> rather than a stop-and-wait fashion.
Maybe I'm unduly pessimistic, but I would have t
> Maybe I'm unduly pessimistic, but I would have trouble working up a lot of
> enthusiasm for doing work on a project if I knew that some gatekeeper
> working in parallel might later tell me that I was wasting my time.
I have trouble working up a lot of enthusiasm for contributing to work that is
> but rather, how to make better use of its time by producing a
> specification that was more relevant. ...
> Apparently you think that an artist is the best judge of the relevance
> of his own work.
I find the assumption that external reviewers are better able to score a
project's "relevance", wh
Keith Moore wrote:
True. Which is why it's necessary to handle the reviews in a pipelined rather than a stop-and-wait fashion. But part of the reason IETF's process is so slow is that the
only meaningful checks we place are at the end - so a working group typically labors to the point of exhau
> > but rather, how to make better use of its time by producing a
> > specification that was more relevant. ...
> > Apparently you think that an artist is the best judge of the relevance
> > of his own work.
>
> I find the assumption that external reviewers are better able to score a
> project's "
> There's already a means for "external reviewers" to do so: read the drafts,
> make comments, add issues to the issue tracker. It's really not rocket
> science.
That's not quite sufficient, because most WGs aren't proceeding according to
good engineering discipline (e.g. they're doing things in
Keith Moore wrote:
There's already a means for "external reviewers" to do so: read the drafts,
make comments, add issues to the issue tracker. It's really not rocket
science.
That's not quite sufficient, because most WGs aren't proceeding according to
good engineering discipline (e.g. th
Hi Iljitsch,
I don't know about "narrow community", but I agree that good reviews
are essential. Reviewing is hard, especially with long documents /
complex specifications (unfortunately it still seems some RFC writers
are paid by the word) and also when there are many dependencies. And
ther
Ladies and Gentlefolk,
It's that time of year again, so this is a quick announcement. We intend
to continue provide streaming audio as a service to the attendees and
remote participants of the IETF 66 Meeting in Montreal Canada. Streaming
should begin at 0800 EDT on July 9th.
The webpage from whi
Michael,
Merely calling something or someone a name like sclerotic or dillitante is
unconvincing. You haven't seen a proposal yet, you have no idea of how this
would work (or apparently, how a review of an engineering effort should work),
and yet you dismiss the very idea out of hand. That's
> Merely calling something or someone a name like sclerotic or dillitante
> is unconvincing. You haven't seen a proposal yet, you have no idea of
> how this would work
Good point. The sooner you send around a proposal, the sooner we can
figure out how it might improve the process.
_
On Jun 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
That's not quite sufficient, because most WGs aren't proceeding
according to good engineering discipline (e.g. they're doing things
in the wrong order, like trying to define the protocol before the
problem space is understood)
I'd generalize
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 17:34:09 -0700
Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's not quite sufficient, because most WGs aren't proceeding
> > according to good engineering discipline (e.g. they're doing things
> > in the wrong order, like trying to define the protocol before the
> > problem
> > Merely calling something or someone a name like sclerotic or dillitante
> > is unconvincing. You haven't seen a proposal yet, you have no idea of
> > how this would work
>
> Good point. The sooner you send around a proposal, the sooner we can
> figure out how it might improve the process.
F
Does this mean that audio streaming, including recording will be
available also for the EDU sessions scheduled for the afternoon of
Sunday, 7/9?
Thanks,
Dan
> -Original Message-
> From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 11:22 PM
> To: ietf@iet
22 matches
Mail list logo
