Re: [nbs] NBS conflict with MEXT

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 11/2/10 7:58 AM, David Harrington wrote:
> NBS touches a wide variety of protocols and layers.
>    
Touching a variety of protocols is a justification to not worry about a 
particular WG it is conflicting with. But layers is a different matter. 
You currently have NBS, ostensibly a protocol which at the very least 
will be serving the Apps layer, conflicting with the Apps *AREA* 
meeting. If most Apps people (and BOTH Apps ADs) cannot be there to 
comment on this BOF, I simply don't see the point in having it.
> The API bridges between an Application and a transport, and work could be done in either area.
>    
You bet. Which is why the almost complete absence of people in one of 
those two areas seems pretty darn goofy.
> As I see it, no matter where you put this BOF, it will conflict with
> some other scheduled sessions.
>    
Again, one thing to conflict with a WG, another to conflict with an 
entire interested area.
> So my tendency is to say, let's just leave the BOF where it is.
>    
I think this is phenomenally short sighted.
> (and I consider the WG-Chairs list the wrong place for this
> discussion. Please use [e-mail]  list.
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nbs  )
>    

This is a BOF. Chairs who might not be aware of the BOF or have 
particular interest in the work area still might be significant input on 
this kind of conflict.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: [phone], Fax: [phone]