Re: [babel] Babel BoF: fixing an agenda

["Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[e-mail]>]

On 2/16/16, 10:19 AM, "Juliusz Chroboczek" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

...
>
>> The "applicability of Babel" is not reflected in the agenda.  BTW, "the
>> working group producing a suitable applicability statement" is probably
>>a
>> good output, but the requirements to be satisfied by the successor
>> documents should be clear.  IOW, I would really like to see a discussion
>> of deployments and their characteristics (which may contribute to the
>> "technical topics (that) need attention" part above).
>
>Have you had a chance to look at draft-chroboczek-babel-applicability-00,
>which I published yesterday?  I'd be grateful for feedback on this
>document,
>since I'm not entirely clear what's expected from an applicability
>statement.

No, I haven't.

The way I see it (which shouldn't be taken as the final word) is that an
applicability statement would tell us (in this case) when and how to use
Babel.  Maybe there are specific features or a recommended configuration
for a specific deployment (mesh networks, or homenet, or...).  I don't
think you have to produce one document per case, unless the application
and deployment model are so different that it warrants that.

As an example, take a look at the "ROLL Applicability Statement Template".
 Just an example...

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-applicability-template


>
>> It would also be ideal to have a little but more diversity in the draft
>> authors going forward.
>
>Why is that?  Is the success of a WG judged by the quality of the
>specifications produced, or by how many people shared the experience?
>
>Alvaro, I'd be glad to see people volunteer to author or co-author
>documents.  However, I have no intention to go soliciting co-authors when
>I'd much rather be spending my time writing specifications and code.

I agree with you.  The ideal would in fact be to see other people
volunteer -- it reflects the interest and willingness of people to work.

To be clear: I have to reason to doubt your ability.  However, we're
talking about forming a WG -- where ideally the group would work on all
parts (write, review, implement, etc.).

Alvaro.