The way I see it the problem that this proposal tries to solve is about
helping the IESG and the community to make a better decision when the
forming of the working group us discussed. It is not about bringing more
work to the IETF, it is about making sure to a better extent that the
right work is being brought into the IETF. In the absence of such a
process what we see in many cases is the formation of ad-hoc groups,
which is not necessarily bad - but why not charter them with a set of
clear questions which may help the IESG and the whole community reach a
more educated decision?
Regarding terminology, the term 'study group' is used in this proposal
in a way similar to how the IEEE is using it.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 3:30 PM
To: Eric Rescorla
Cc: Jari Arkko; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02
If I understand the purpose of this experiment it would be to
provide ADs some indication of level of interest and ability
to succeed. I see no reason why we need to formalize this
within the IETF. Furthemore, the terminology is problematic.
We are overlapping a term that is commonly used by the ITU
the way working group is used by the IETF.
Let's not make the process any more confusing than it already is.
Finally, milestones for such "study groups" seem to me inappropriate.
It may be that a topic is uninteresting for quite a while and
then picks up. ANY way to demonstrate that interest and
ability to succeed should be sufficient, regardless of how
much time has passed.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf