Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02

On 10/11/2007 9:47 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>> Just for the record, if the norm ends up being "Idea --> BoF-1 --> 
>> BoF-2 -->  SG --> WG," I would be very disappointed and would chalk 
>> that up under the law of unintended consequences :).  I am hoping that 
>> "Idea --> SG --> WG" or "Idea --> BoF1 --> SG --> WG" in that order 
>> become the norm (where SG is involved of course), especially when 
>> proponents of new work are people who may not be regulars at the IETF.
> 
> One of the reasons for having a BoF is that the BoF proponents need to 
> convince the rest of the IETF that the idea is workable and there's 
> sufficient interest to work on the topic.
> 
> If there is expectation that no BoF is held between the SG and WG phase, 
> how can we guarantee that the IETF as a whole thinks the charter and the 
> other deliverables the SG worked on are convincing and worth doing?

Hi Pekka,

Section 2.3 of 2418 would apply.

regards,
Lakshminath
> 
> As for the timeslot scheduling, I'd say SGs should have a precedence 
> over IRTF research groups, given that we're talking about IETF meetings, 
> not IRTF meetings.
> 

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