On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
Just for the record, if the norm ends up being "Idea --> BoF-1 --> BoF-2
--> SG --> WG," I would be very disappointed and would chalk that up
under the law of unintended consequences :). I am hoping that "Idea --> SG
--> WG" or "Idea --> BoF1 --> SG --> WG" in that order become the norm (where
SG is involved of course), especially when proponents of new work are people
who may not be regulars at the IETF.
One of the reasons for having a BoF is that the BoF proponents need to
convince the rest of the IETF that the idea is workable and there's
sufficient interest to work on the topic.
If there is expectation that no BoF is held between the SG and WG
phase, how can we guarantee that the IETF as a whole thinks the
charter and the other deliverables the SG worked on are convincing and
worth doing?
As for the timeslot scheduling, I'd say SGs should have a precedence
over IRTF research groups, given that we're talking about IETF
meetings, not IRTF meetings.
--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf