Re: Next steps

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <3F16FDAB.6CAB9990@hursley.ibm.com>, Brian E Carpenter writes:
>The lack of consensus on how to make the next steps in IETF
>reform throws it to the Chair and the IESG by default, IMHO.
>
>And the sense of urgency shouldn't be lost. There is a chance to
>fix this at relatively low cost, I think, if we act now.
>
>I hate the idea of an open call for proposals. This is not
>IPng redux. I'm not saying solutions shouldn't be debated on
>appropriate lists, but either the IESG or a designated team
>should make proactive proposals for the general directions.
>
>The reason I raised my hand against a design team is because
>that suggests a closed method of picking them, as usually
>practiced in WGs. An open process (Avri has a suggestion)
>to pick a blue ribbon panel is much better.
>

I agree that the IESG has to act.  I'm mulling some ideas.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)