> we may decide initially that a temporary area is required
> to establish a level of focus across a range of groups. Over
time that
> will evolve to a point where a complex WG is sufficient to
maintain the
> necessary focus on the critical architectural issues.
Isn't that supposed to be an IRTF working group?
Not necessarily. If all we are ever going to take on in the IETF are
small incremental changes, short-term narrow-focus groups are
appropriate. If we need to make significant changes like replacing the
predominate protocol at a given layer, that isn't going to happen
quickly, and no it is not research. What it means is that the breadth of
the problem space is not well understood by the majority of the
participants. Just figuring out what people need to have spelled out
takes time.