Re: [Ieprep] Discussion on Charter

At 09:48 AM 02/23/05 +0000, Ian Brown wrote:
>Pratik - this has been a long-running debate. But it does seem logical to 
>have the experts on a particular protocol (the responsible Working Group) 
>be involved in any updates that are required to provide these 
>capabilities. Given that the WGs conduct the vast majority of their work 
>by e-mail, and meet at the physical IETF meetings three times a year, 
>would it be particularly more efficient to try to gather all of this 
>expertise in one place, whether a rechartered IEPREP or a new WG?

 From my perspective, it might be.

Related work is going on in a variety of places right now. Some relates to 
RSVP, to MPLS, to diffserv code points, to SIP, and IIRC a few other 
things. The RSVP and diffserv WGs are right now dormant, and the other 
working groups find this rather peripheral to their central foci. If they 
can each severally sit down and get something done, fine. But consider:

  - the SIP work was originally proposed in Adeliade, five years ago
  - the RSVP work builds on work that was finished in 1998, and the WG has
    been closed since then
  - NSIS work, if one chooses that route, is proposed, but at this point very
    sketchy
  - Diffserv has likewise been closed for at least two years
  - We have discussed parts of it with TSVWG, but it is just a few weeks ago
    that they decided to even consider responding to it by allowing the
    documents to become WG drafts

So putting together a WG - whether ieprep with an appropriately changed 
charter or something new - that can focus on this problem and put out a 
solution seems more likely to actually produce a result within our lifetime 
than waiting for WGs that don't exist or don't care to decide it is important.

YMMV 

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
Ieprep@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep