Matthew Wall wrote:
Well, I know it seems like I just asked this, but I've gotten the periodic
nudge from the IETF secretariat that's issued prior to IETF agenda
scheduling, saying 'do you want to schedule something at Minneapolis?' The
March meeting kinda sneaks up on you.
...
So I'd basically propose, and seek discussion and response from the list,
that we have three options:
(1) schedule a second BOF for Minneapolis.
My theory is that this will provide another opportunity for an open-door
meeting, but we'll have implementation experience at that point. If a
second BOF isn't sufficient to complete the bulk of work by that point,
then that suggests we might actually need formal WG status after all. So at
the end of the meeting in Minneapolis, we'd have three possible outcomes:
(a) set a timetable to submit the Sieve draft to the IESG as a Proposed
Standard,
(b) agree to a charter for a WG, or
(c) defer and/or abandon the work in place.
(2) defer another BOF, reserving Washington in November (+six months) as a
potential meeting time.
(3) not plan to meet.
If we don't have to, why bother?
My instinct at this point is to go for option (1), with a goal of (1a),
getting the document, as amended in this next BOF, to standards track
submission, bypassing a working group.
...
-- Next question: wy bother with another BOF? I believe scrutiny of the
broader community in a second BOF will help both the document and getting
it to Proposed Standard ASAP by further exposing it to the community
(especially if we do NOT procrastinate and submit a revised document at the
last minute, but get it out at least 4-6 weeks in advance of the meeting).
...
-- if we don't get good consensus on the document at that point, we'd
probably have difficulty getting the IESG to approve straight-to-standard
anyway, at which point we'd have to get up a WG anyway to continue.
So, please, can I have a quick show of e-hands indicating which of the
above options, (1), (2), or (3), seems best to each of you.
I think we are close enough to having a working language that we should
push forward as quickly as possible. So we need to meet.
However, this could be done via another BOF (1), or another informal
get-together like we did in Orlando.
I think the choice between these two should be dependent on how quickly
we can get -06 out and implemented by multiple people. (Tim, any
progress on that?) But if we have to make a decision within the next
week, then I'd rather go with another informal meeting rather than a
formal BOF.
(By the way, -05 never made it to the official internet-drafts archive.)
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com