Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF

John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net> Fri, 15 November 1996 15:01 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa25178; 15 Nov 96 10:01 EST
Received: from ietf.org by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11082; 15 Nov 96 10:01 EST
Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa25163; 15 Nov 96 10:01 EST
Received: from ns.jck.com by ietf.org id aa25156; 15 Nov 96 10:01 EST
Received: from tp.jck.com ("port 2929"@tp.jck.com) by a4.jck.com (PMDF V5.1-3 #16053) with SMTP id <0E0X29X0W00EL2@a4.jck.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:44:22 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:44:00 -0500
Sender: iesg-request@ietf.org
From: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>
Subject: Re: [AGENTS] BOF at IETF
X-Sender: klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net
To: Steve Coya <scoya@ietf.org>
Cc: Einar Stefferud <stef@nma.com>, Tony Rutkowski <tony@netmagic.com>, iesg@ietf.org, mhtml@segate.sunet.se, fred@cisco.com, directorate@apps.ietf.org
Message-id: <3.0b33.16.19961115092014.4e07450a@mail1.reston.mci.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b33 (16)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 11:14 96.11.14 -0500, Steve Coya wrote:
>The issue has NEVER been whether or not the topic is important to the
>IETF.
>...
>The issue is simply that there is no room at the inn.

Oddly, Steve, while our conclusions are the same, we disagree on the above.
 Once upon a time, there were BOFs at IETF -- informal gatherings that
almost anyone could put together to discuss almost any topic of interest to
at least some IETF participants.  Driven by the "room at the inn" problem,
tight agendas, and the need to tie BOFs into the minutes and reporting
chain, we have gradually turned them into a much more formal structure, one
that requires AD approval and meeting time slots.  And, because of
scarcity, many of those "AD approval" decisions come down to "is this
valuable and relevant enough", even if the requests are made early.

As someone who used to make those decisions, I felt strongly driven toward
favoring BOFs that had a high likelihood of evolving into IETF WGs over,
e.g., informational activities.   And, as Dave has pointed out too, if the
real work on this is expected to be done in OMG, then the only natural
relationship between the OMG WG and IETF is informational -- information
about what is going on and invitations for individuals to join in the OMG
effort.  We don't even try to do parallel WGs and, given different
organizational models, I'd predict that any effort at parallel WGs would
not have a good future for any of us.

  regards,
     john