[ppml] 2005-1 status
>> Actually, I would say that the IETF is still responsible, but continues
>> to avoid making the hard choices that go along with changing the
>> fundamental routing architecture.
> you, dr. bug, specifically said that, post-kobe, the ietf was not
> responsible for architecture. so it would seem hard for you to
> blame the ietf.
Actually, I believe the point that I was trying to make was that the
IETF needed to step up and make architectural decisions consistently and
across the board. The IETF must not use its architectural sword in an
ad hoc manner to strike at various specific proposals. Doing so will
turn architecture into simply a tool to be used for personal crusades
rather than a force for the common good.
> i, on the other hand, disagree with you on that lack of responsibility.
> they just don't meet it.
Allow me to clarify: given the lack of other parties, I believe that the
IETF still holds the responsibility for architecture. Historically,
they were tasked with, and acted to create and maintain the
architecture. I believe it is still part of their charter. I
vehemently don't believe that they are fulfilling that responsibility
and that the community should seriously consider supporting any other
group that would care to shoulder the load, thereby transferring the
responsibility. So far, I have seen no other credible contenders.