Re: DRAFT minutes from the BOF

[Stan Barber <[e-mail]>]

Anne writes:
> 
> Stan Barber writes:
> 
> > It was not clear that there was
> > consensus on the need to establish such extensions from the IETF perspective
> > and the mechanism for establishing such verbs was not significantly discussed.
> 
> Indeed it was not significantly discussed, but I assumed that folks
> agreed it was a good idea, and that there was not much more to say
> about it.  Perhaps I'm wrong.

Hard to say. The meeting was not really set up to resolve this, just to
see if folks agreed that the basic idea was ok. 

> 
> > Additionally, Keith Moore, one of the Applications Area Directors, did not
> > feel that a revised RFC977 that did not include accepted current practice
> > would probably not be acceptable to IESG and suggested that the two documents
> > be merged into one. 
> 
> You mean that Keith Moore *did* feel that [...] would not be
> acceptable -- editing glitch, I imagine.

Yep. Will be fixed in the 2nd draft.

> 
> > any resulting document might be scrutinized
> > more heavily by IESG that the output from other working groups.
> 
> My impression was not that *documents* would be scrutinized, but that,
> because of past problems getting the NNTP community to come to
> consensus, there might be a problem letting us form a working group at
> all unless the *charter* (well, I guess that's a document too :-) )
> was very clear, and defined a very limited amount of work.

I think your statement is definately closer to what was said than mine, so
I will update the draft along those lines.

> 
> > track. Keith said that would probably be an suitable approach, but it would
>                                            ^^ typo
Yep. Fixed in the 2nd draft.

-- 
Stan   | Academ Consulting Services        |internet: [e-mail]
Olan   | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob
Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.