My opinion about this was expressed before, I do not believe the charter
should be absolutly exact and that the first step for the WG would be
to work on requirement document (ID to become INFORMATIONAL RFC) and then
use that to evaluate proposals or work on new one that will comply with
those requirements. Last time this was discussed (September?) the group
was split on this issue and those who were against it said that this
will only cause extra delay - which I figured to be about 4-6 months.
in the timeframe I proposed. Guess what? We ended up being delayed by
that time or even longer because we could not agree on the charter then
and its possible we'll now end up being delayed even longer. We could
use that time more productively and actually work as part of WG and maybe
this will cause us to come closer to solution ...
Now about the BoF for next IETF. What I do not understand is why is IETF
so afraid of having a BoF even if we do not have consensus on WG charter
right now? I undertand that IETF is somewhat relactant to start WG
(especially after MARID) if its unclear if it come up with solution,
but does the same really apply to BoF? After all, IETF is not putting on
itself any obligation to produce anything by having a BoF - its just an
informal meeting of interested parties. And if anything such a meeting
face-face may well help us work out the current differences we have!
And if BoF does not cause consensus on WG charter that IESG is willing
to approve, well - we'll just have to work more on it and may decide to
hold another BoF (at yet another IETF - 3rd one is a charm, right?), no
difference then with if we not have had a BoF, i.e. the issue is still
with us and getting deferred to another meeting.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net