Masataka Ohta wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot
of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest
(which still exists BTW). The rule for diffserv(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org was "must
be relevant to a chartered work item" and the rule for diffserv-interest
was "must be relevant to diffserv technology."
Though I never participated in diffserv WG activities, which was
chartered wrongly from the beginning,
As a matter of fact, I believe that the insistence of the ADs
involved on a very tightly drawn charter was the main reason that
the WG succeeded.
your chairing strategy
You mean the care we took to consider dissenting opinions before
reaching rough consensus? Or something else?
explains why the result of the WG is technically meaningless.
That is a strange statement given the actual facts of implementation
and deployment.
People only interested
in the standards work simply ignored the -interest list.
They ignored the -interest list and the technology.
Are you referring to the many vendors that implemented
it, or the many enterprises that have deployed it?
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf