[Top] [All Lists]

Chicago IETF: To Meet or Not to Meet

1998-06-10 09:51:12


just got the call for scheduling WG/BOF meetings for the Chicago IETF today
from Marcia.

My inclination is to NOT schedule a BOF at Chicago. Here's my reasoning:

- the pushback from the meeting at LA was that there was plenty of interest,
but before proceeding, the rough edges had to be worked out and a revised
version of the spec worked out on the list.

As we've had only about 20 posts to the list since the LA BOF, I think we
have a lot more work to do on the list.

FYI, the official (blue sheet) attendance at the BOF was 87, though I
head-counted about 100.

- my personal feeling on this is we should "finish" SIEVE more or less as is
as "SIEVE1" without opening up ratholes like procedures, and use that --
which will provide some working solutions now, especially since a couple of
folks are already doing implementations -- and provide a basis of discussion
for standardization and additional work. There's nothing in "SIEVE1" as-is
that can't be undone in an enhanced "SIEVE2". This method of proceeding
doesn't require a meeting at this point, since I don't think we've seen
enough progress since LA at this point to justify a productive meeting. And
I'd prefer holding off Ratholefestapalooza II until we have working
experience with simplified SIEVE1-style implementations. Just my druthers,
but I will defend the position that simple and implemented is better than
complicated and vapor.

- remember that official IETF procedures allow only _two_
officially-scheduled BOFs. I'd like to reserve that last BOF for December
(or some later use), at which point we can (a) go straight to standard or
(b) decide to go ahead with a working group (or c, abandon all work 8-). I
basically don't want to "waste" our second and last official BOF without
more evidence that we'll have sufficient implementation progress by August,
and similarly, with sufficient implementation progress it will become a lot
more apparent whether this puppy has enough momentum to go formal WG route
and/or enough simplicity to skip it and go straight to proposed.

- I personally have next to no time to put into organizing a SIEVE BOF for
August, especially if a couple of other expected IETF obligations percolate
up for that meeting.

- all that said, the December meeting isn't too far off, so I don't think
delaying a BOF or a putative WG session until then is terribly harmful.


We have until August 3 to request a slot, but I'd like to develop a
yes/no/punt consensus now if at all possible. 

- Matt

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>