Re: [Add] Proposed charter and BoF request for IETF 106

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 10, 2019, at 11:35 AM, tirumal reddy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Yes for a BoF to discuss the above documents including the ones from Apple. 

Why is this better than discussing them in dprive?  Talking about documents that already have homes seems like a poor justification for having a BoF: sufficiently poor that if that is the stated goal of the BoF, there is a tendency to wonder what the unstated goal might be.   I don’t mean to suggest shenanigans—what I mean is that there is some ur-idea behind this BoF that perhaps hasn’t even been clearly expressed among the proponents, and that would be useful to surface.

When I look at the proposed charter, I don’t really see it talking about stuff that we can reach consensus on.   I think there are some interesting questions being asked here, but I don’t think there’s any kind of consensus on the answers.

As Martin said, I think it could be useful to have an IAB workshop on this to explore those topics, and maybe see if there are schools of thought on the various issues mentioned here.   I suspect there are.   If these could be captured in a non-consensus document that simply explains what the various beliefs are clearly and with sufficient background that they can be reasoned about, that could be a substantial improvement over the discussion we’ve been having here.

But I don’t see that happening in a 200-person BoF.   And the idea that we would charter a working group without having done that, with a charter to act on the stated work items, just seems like another chaff-generating activity.   I certainly agree that there are issues to discuss here; I just don’t believe that a working group chartered to reach consensus on these topics is a good approach at the present moment.