On 10/11/2007 9:47 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:
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?
Hi Pekka,
Section 2.3 of 2418 would apply.
regards,
Lakshminath
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.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf