Re: [ftpext] Working on the ftpext2 BOF agenda...

[Anthony Bryan <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> for others, information on audio streaming & jabber chatroom are here:
>> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/78/remote-participation.html

thanks, Barry. this was my first IETF BOF & it went well, at least
from the audio feed/jabber.

a final decision was not made on whether to form a Working Group.

a number of people raised their hands that they would review drafts.
this mailing list now has 23 subscribers. I've tried to contact as
many people individually, including all the expired draft authors,
along with mailing lists and application authors.

I'm wondering what the pros/cons are of WG creation? is there much
overhead for a total failure of a WG (besides those involved, which
would also be involved independently)?

the other route is independent submissions, of which there are at
least 5 (not counting the 2 from behave) at the moment. which seems to
be more work for an AD.

a WG raises the profile of what we are doing, and possibly more people
will join in. as mentioned in the BOF, we can do all work over the
mailing lists, not require face to face meetings, and work around busy
people's schedules so they can collaborate when convenient.

one nice thing, most of the active drafts are relatively conservative
in their ideas. there's nothing too wacky going on. hash, hosts,
deflate, ftp-uri, some of these commands have been around a decade or
longer and we are just standardizing their use. I think this is very
worthwhile for interoperability on its own.

again, I'm volunteering for any cat herding or admin work I can do to
keep this rolling.
-- 
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads