Dave says...
So if this is going to be on the agenda, I suggest that it be specific
questions or problems, with specific suggestions for specific
resolutions.
Agreed... see below.
Mike says...
And at this point, I really think what we need is data far more
than we need conjecture. I'm in the beginning process of getting
more data on this subject in our deployment, but don't yet have
any meaningful numbers. Hopefully within the next few months though.
That sounds good. I think some good data will be a good starting point,
and I appreciate that Mike's working on providing some. Thanks.
As I interpret the discussion that we've had with Russ, and the
requirement for mailing-list consideration that was added to the charter
as a result of concerns from the Vancouver BOF, I believe that an
analysis of the mailing-list issues is a prerequisite to having the base
spec approved as an RFC (that is, it's not something we can do later).
I suggest -- and I haven't discussed this with Stephen, so, Stephen,
pipe up if you disagree -- that we get a small group (up to three, I
think) of participants who are concerned about this and who have
appropriate experience, and work up an Internet Draft discussing the
mailing-list issues. That draft would either be merged with the base
spec before the latter goes to the IESG, or would be sent at the same
time, as a companion document.
Thoughts?
Barry
--
Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology
(leiba(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com)
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html