Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 28/04/14 11:25, Joerg Ott wrote:
> 
> I don't disagree with this.  But I don't want to be presumptious
> on how the answer should look like either (which also implies not
> ruling out options).

Well, isn't that last more appropriate for an RG than a WG? I
mean we presumably don't want a WG that thrashes endlessly on
the amount of change vs. 5050 that's acceptable and I think
that could happen if we can't decide on this while chartering
the putative WG.

I also think it might (not 100% sure) be the case that different
folks would be more or less interested in a WG depending on
the answer to this question, so another danger for chartering a
WG could be that if the answer to this question only emerges
some months down the road, then half the WG participants
might lose interest at that point and the whole thing might
fizzle.

S.