Re: DRAFT minutes from the BOF

[Anne Bennett <[e-mail]>]

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> track. Keith said that would probably be an suitable approach, but it would
                                           ^^ typo

> The charter of the working group would involve three goals:
[...]

Well expressed!


Anne.
-- 
Ms. Anne Bennett, Computing Services, Concordia University, Montreal H3G 1M8
[e-mail]                                       [phone]