RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Mon, 08 November 2010 11:26 UTC
Return-Path: <rcallon@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3A23A6978 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 03:26:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.439
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HCrFIks1NJlD for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 03:26:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og111.obsmtp.com (exprod7og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017753A68C4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 03:26:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob111.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTNfeZK7NEwFb779PON0c6PN6ikjhLK8L@postini.com; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 03:26:29 PST
Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 03:25:12 -0800
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 06:25:12 -0500
From: Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net>
To: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 06:25:10 -0500
Subject: RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
Thread-Topic: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
Thread-Index: Act/LtId5AAtETxcTO6jFOgehusvzQAA9bS2AABbrtA=
Message-ID: <DF7F294AF4153D498141CBEFADB177049AAD664AF4@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <20101108022649.BD7E03A694D@core3.amsl.com> <4CD76710.7050004@gmail.com>, <1638.210.138.216.50.1289211674.squirrel@mail.smetech.net> <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B22022889E8@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B22022889E8@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:26:09 -0000
WGs already have a charter and WG chairs. It would be *very* unusual to decide to revoke a WG's charter between the time that the request to meet has been made and the secretariat puts together a draft IETF charter (much less unusual to update a WG charter in a way that is fully consistent with the meeting request). BOF requests come in with proposals that vary widely in terms of how clear or how focused they are, how important the work appears to be, and so on. They require some degree of evaluation on the part of the responsible ADs (with input from appropriate others). Thus they take more time to evaluate. Ross -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Worley, Dale R (Dale) Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 5:50 AM To: Russ Housley; Brian E Carpenter Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment ________________________________________ From: wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org [wgchairs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley [housley@vigilsec.com] The deadline for BOF requests comes too soon after the end of one IETF meeting for the next one. We are hearing complaints, and subjectively, the quality of the request write-ups do reflect this situation. So, yes, the intent is to allow more time by shifting the BOF request deadline. _________________________________________ I would think that the more formal the session, the longer in advance that the need for the session will be reliably predicted. Since BOFs are less formal, the deadline for them should be *later* than for WG sessions, preferably very shortly before the IETF meeting. Dale _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment The IESG
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Richard L. Barnes
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Dave CROCKER
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Scott Brim
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Aaron Falk
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Geoff Mulligan
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Barry Leiba
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Henk Uijterwaal
- RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment gregory.cauchie
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Michael Richardson
- RE: BOF Attendance Minimization Bernard Aboba
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Russ Housley
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Pete Resnick
- Re: BOF Attendance Minimization Dave CROCKER
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Spencer Dawkins
- RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Ross Callon
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Kurt Zeilenga
- Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent IPv6 … Templin, Fred L
- Re: Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent I… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Geoff Mulligan
- RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment David Harrington
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Scott Brim
- RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Eric Burger