Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF
Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Mon, 18 November 1996 14:55 UTC
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa06223; 18 Nov 96 9:55 EST
Received: from ietf.org by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11117; 18 Nov 96 9:55 EST
Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa06205; 18 Nov 96 9:55 EST
Received: from nacho.cisco.com by ietf.org id aa06178; 18 Nov 96 9:55 EST
Received: from fred-axel-fr.cisco.com (fred-axel-fr.cisco.com [171.69.128.115]) by nacho.cisco.com (8.6.12/CISCO.SERVER.1.1) with ESMTP id GAA29287; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 06:47:50 -0800
Received: from fred-axel-fr (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by fred-axel-fr.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/CISCO.WS.1.1) with SMTP id GAA08858; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 06:46:44 -0800
X-Orig-Sender: fred@cisco.com
Message-Id: <329076D3.237C228A@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 06:46:43 -0800
Sender: iesg-request@ietf.org
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco Systems/IOS
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0GoldC-CISCOENG (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4m)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Einar Stefferud <stef@nma.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>, Steve Coya <scoya@ietf.org>, Tony Rutkowski <tony@netmagic.com>, iesg@ietf.org, mhtml@segate.sunet.se, directorate@apps.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF
References: <RM:c0d83d13.0013c7a9.0>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
stef@nma.com wrote: > Other work has suffered from being closed to broad review which brings us back to the matter at hand, which is the agents bof. As I tried to articulate to Tony, we have some scheduling problems inherent in this meeting structure - there are a finite number of slots, and we perpetually have more takers than we have slots to put them in. and we have a finite number of things that we can do about that. Part of what we do is review the work being done, and try to determine not who MIGHT be interested in using it after it is completed, but who IS interested in developing it. To do that, we ask the person proposing the BOF to show us his posted internet drafts (which anyone, IETF or not, can post at will) and their list of interested parties. If we have N slots, we try to give them to the N potential BOF choices that (a) we know about at the time we're handing out BOF slots, (b) appear from draft count and body count to be viable, and (c) from a quick read of the drafts appear to be going in a direction that both works and solves a problem. This is certainly imperfect, and if you have suggestions we will certainly consider them. But we are not giving one to Tony at this time because while there appear to be two companies whose corporate positions support Agents, we haven't been able to identify any technologists or any other companies who actually want to work on it, and we can't seem to find an internet draft that tells us either the problem being solved or the solution proposed. And yes, three weeks before the IETF is pretty late from a scheduling perspective.
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Steve Coya
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Tony Rutkowski
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF John C Klensin
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Steve Coya
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF John C Klensin
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF stef
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF John C Klensin
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF stef
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF John C Klensin
- RE: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Lewis Geer (Exchange)
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF stef
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Fred Baker
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF stef
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Harald.T.Alvestrand
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Fred Baker
- Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF Jay