Dave,
There are a few topics for which mailing list discussion has failed to
reach consensus and would really benefit from f2f time. You can look at
SIP WG archives for example for a couple of the hot topics. As chairs,
we do try to push for completion of work on the mailing lists, but this
isn't always successful and we've yet to get around the situation
whereby the vast majority of documents are not updated until just prior
to the meetings, thus the ability to reach consensus and close off
issues is really limited - I can give lots of examples of this, as I
track document due dates for the WG I co-chair and the majority don't
make the dates set for between meeting updates.
The other issue is just the sheer volume of work incoming to RAI - it's
over 20% of overall IETF drafts per Jari's stats:
http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/areadistr.html
Also, note that 6 of the RAI WGs make up 50% of the top 12 WGs based on
volume of documents:
http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/wgdistr.html
We also have more WGs in RAI, thus it's extremely difficult to avoid
overlaps that don't result in concerns for primary contributors.
Mary.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc2(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:02 AM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: IETF Chair; IETF Announcement list; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
iesg(_at_)iesg(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF
73
Mary Barnes wrote:
In my mind, these additional Friday sessions are really a must for
RAI,
What work do RAI groups need to perform during these meetings that
cannot be done on the various RAI mailing lists?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf