Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:53:17PM +0200, Mark Townsley wrote:
> 
> There is a provision that the above can still happen in the IETF,
> but only outside of Homenet, just as anyone could do today via
> individual drafts, presentation to other WGs, etc.

I think that was the key part to me.  I'm not actually sure I see the
value in a WG with such a constrained charter.

At the same time, I take David's (and others', presumed) point that
it's a good thing when WGs have narrow, well-defined scope and clear
deliverables.

This makes me think that the gap analysis we think is needed ought to
be undertaken now, without a WG or BoF or anything, by individuals who
are interested.  If that happens, and we end up with a document in
hand outlining what we think the problems are, that would provide the
basis for the specific and well-circumscribed remedy proposals that I
think David and the other IESG members are looking for.  Similarly, if
that _doesn't_ happen, it amounts to evidence either that the problem
is not well enough understood, or the interest is not sufficient, for
a WG to be successful.

Thoughts?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]
Shinkuro, Inc.