Re: [clouds] IESG/IAB response to the Clouds BOF request in Beijing

"Spencer Dawkins" <> Fri, 17 September 2010 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11EF83A6914 for <>; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.169
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.430, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id byGXfa2wRZ-h for <>; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DC73A6870 for <>; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from S73602b ([]) by (node=mrus3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MaJDU-1PGQHL3Xr6-00Jxn9; Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:29:59 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: "Spencer Dawkins" <>
To: "Alexey Melnikov" <>, "Marc Blanchet" <>
References: <> <><> <>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:29:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:5Qs90KP2RlK7i8bAusR7LqHuW6Hxkc97FoHo68P597f fYFejfOSUHeNv8gldeN5PcEafz/u2pN510V0TkVSPFCmjtaUUT KT+CqLc9kwee++pZx9JrCvuBrNzB3VUeUI4VDR7h6admaOOy/L FgtXM+5o12K11Kjy1tPnmHDYvdBjwQTzM3lGyXamoiKT6+wjer AcInjBjwQHFStwbXMZ5NWFkdji4otpRO2Zk/hlzRrk=
Subject: Re: [clouds] IESG/IAB response to the Clouds BOF request in Beijing
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Clouds pre-BOF discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:29:36 -0000

Just to echo what Alexey said ... and speaking as an individual ...

It is true that there are protocols that touch multiple areas, and the IESG 
did approve at least one BOF request that is RIGHT on the border between TSV 
and INT yesterday, so that's not a fatal flaw.

What concerned me is that there were so many work items that were spread 
across so many areas. I can't imagine chairing a group like that - I'm not 
even sure I can imagine filling out the conflict list!

I agree with Alexey here. My suggestion is to identify small discrete work 
items, focusing on what the protocol work is (because that's what IETF does 
best), and submit them individually to the right area directors.

I hope this is helpful.