Re: [homegate] Update on BOF / WG formation

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

>> 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?

I think that's a good idea.
 - let's see individual drafts, preferably with -homenet- in the filename
 - continue to use this mailing list for discussion
 - cancel the homenet BOF slot in Beijing.
 - reconsider the need for a wg at a later juncture.

cheers,
Ole