Re: [sidr] additional interim meetings

[Terry Manderson <[e-mail]>]

On 23/03/12 4:43 AM, "Eric Osterweil" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Comments?
> 
> This is a large amount of travel and I think it unduly reduces the ability of
> many of the wg's members to participate at the same level as they do today.  I
> think this is a bad idea.
> 

I predict travel related to a particular work focus a full 13-15 months in
advance of going somewhere, there is generally some contingency, but not to
these levels - as I exist as a part of a healthy budget process. I expect
many others would be in a similar or worse situation as to their travel
flexibility.

I accept that the drivers/authors of the BGPSEC work along with chairs and
ADs want to maintain momentum - but given the importance of this topic and
the many many layers it crosses (in some cases without meaning to), both
breadth and depth of participation to produce the best effort (including
palatability) result is needed over trying to meet WG milestones. I expect
that can only be satisfied with ML participation and IETF attendance.

So I also think adding interim meetings is bad.

Cheers
Terry