Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation

On 9/24/10 5:07 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> FWIW, I view the first steps here along the lines of PILC, i.e.,
> document best practices using existing protocols.
> 
> If that process hints that there are potential gaps, then I would expect
> we would/could be rechartered to determine the gaps, and indicate where
> and how they would be best addressed.
> 
> If there are gaps and no other WG is more appropriate to do the work, or
> if it needs to be coordinated, then we could try to recharter for that
> task.
> 
> I do agree with the current approach, though - not to jump in assuming
> this is a new architectural component, or that it requires new
> protocols, until we understand what's really missing first.

What "current approach" do you agree with?

For example, the message from David included specifically that no
"protocol gap analysis" would be permitted within the WG, so I am
assuming you don't mean the approach laid out in that email.

- Mark

> 
> Joe
> 
> On 9/24/2010 7:42 AM, Stephen [kiwin] PALM wrote:
>> I also had questioned some of the aims of the proposed group when other
>> groups
>> were doing most, if not all, of the same things (albeit wearing
>> different hats)
>>
>> On 9/24/2010 4:30 AM, Ray Bellis wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the question on the table now is whether it is worthwhile to
>>>> charter homenet for just this type of work or not. I tend to think the
>>>> answer to that is no, but I want to hear from the list first.
>>>
>>> For the avoidance of doubt, that is my position too.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> homegate mailing list
>>> homegate@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> homegate mailing list
> homegate@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate
> 