--On 22. juli 2004 10:55 -0700 Aaron Falk <falk(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU> wrote:
Perhaps we should raise the bar on what it takes to get a slot at the
IETF meeting. For example, try to come up with some objective criteria
for what deserves a 1hr slot, 2hrs, multiple, etc. This might even
nudge groups into making some additional progress ("you can't have your
meeting if you don't hit a/some milestones").
note - there aren't that many multiple-slot WGs.
Here's the list a quick scan came up with for this meeting:
avt--
dnsext--
geopriv-- (2x1h)
l2vpn-- (2x1h)
marid--
mip6--
nsis--
radext--
rohc-- (2x1h)
simple--
sip--
sipping--
v6ops--
xcon--
aaa-- (2x1h)
opsec-- (2x1h)
16, out of which 5 clearly are 2-hour requests that were put into 1-hour
slots. So outlawing double-slot WGs altogehter gives us 11 more slots to
play with.
That's more than adding a Thursday evening slot gives us - but it's not
much..... if we want to do something that really reduces demand for slots,
we have to force the "normal" size of a meeting down to 1 hour (somehow).
Personally, I'm as worried about this list:
adslmib
atompub
bridge
disman
ediint
fax
idmr
idwg
impp
iporpr
ipp
ipr
ipsec
ipseckey
ipsp
iptel
kink
l2tpext
megaco
mipshop
msgtrk
nntpext
openpgp
policy
pppext
problem
ptomaine
rap
sacred
seamoby
secsh
send
sigtran
snmpconf
spirits
ssm
stime
syslog
tewg
tls
trade
usefor
vpim
xmpp
zeroconf
It's the set of WGs that are (based on my quick count) NOT meeting in San
Diego - 46 WGs. Some (like ipr and problem) are just waiting for their RFCs
to pop out before closing down.... but others may not be....
Assuming no liability for possible errors.....
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf