Frank writes:
| I do not think that this is appropriate for an IRTF work item.
| We're trying to put together what _we_ think are the correct
| requirements. Going into various communities like that seems to
| be more of a task for an hypothetical standardization effort;
| thus better suited to the IETF.
Input is input; while we're certainly allowed to be snobs by the rules,
it does not mean we have a monopoly on truth and insight. On the other
hand, I'd rather have the communities come here and participate constructively
in the (open) Routing Research Group than go out and solicit opinions
from them at the RG level. WRT ad hoc subgroup authoring and
soliciting opinions from other folks, I would like to leave that
sort of thing to the subgroup itself. I have no objections at all
to a "here's what *we* (several authors) think" document being
presented to the RG with a request to move it towards publication,
or conversely to a "here's what we have determined *many people*
(based on a sample, or a survey) think" document either.
Input being input, some of it could be good, and some could result in GIGO.
More of it does not necessarily influence the ratio of good:garbage,
but certainly takes longer to accumulate.
Is that sufficiently flexible without being hopelessly vague? :-)
Sean.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:03 EDT