Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 10 November 2011 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C72E11E8086 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:31:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RQyU4fAJJUMc for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:31:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B9D11E8088 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:31:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.229] (61-31-89-133.static.tfn.net.tw [61.31.89.133]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAA2V00n005895 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:31:11 -0800
Message-ID: <4EBB3762.6000907@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:30:58 +0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <BDC0F178EEB88CC4B3D24020@PST.JCK.COM> <4EB8D0F4.9020907@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <24FBF40353ABCC3A4F15E82B@PST.JCK.COM> <56B202FE-ED81-4C36-AB4C-0A809F51D009@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <56B202FE-ED81-4C36-AB4C-0A809F51D009@standardstrack.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 09 Nov 2011 18:31:12 -0800 (PST)
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/*
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:31:13 -0000

On 11/10/2011 5:00 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
> Sounds like a call for a BOF.


For a topic like this, I believe a BOF makes sense only for either or both of:

    1.  Interactive tutorial, to create a community of folk who share a common 
set of information and are going to proceed doing some work on the topic. 
Hence, this would prime the work pump.

    2.  Debate particulars, prior to formulating a spec.  One can argue that 
that sounds like a regular working group, but I've tailored the description to 
fit a before-wg phase.  In any event, this presumes that folks are already 
sharing a common base of knowledge and details and merely need to debates some 
details.

My sense of this extended thread is that the group ain't quite far enough along 
for #2.  I can't tell whether #1 is needed.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net