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

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?

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.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

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