IETF Logo Mail Archive

Using our resources efficiently

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 06 January 2011 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE3293A6F43 for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:36:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.477
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lA1YCdEC+mgD for <tsvwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:36:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E390E3A6F35 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:36:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.9.160.166] (abc.isi.edu [128.9.160.166]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p06Ibi27025045 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:37:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D260BF9.3030509@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:37:45 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org chair" <tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Using our resources efficiently
References: <4D21F2FC.2090000@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <FE2AD841-7CAD-4A09-A766-73A1D5BE1F56@cisco.com> <068B22BC-E1B4-4C7F-99C5-3B8B483EB057@cisco.com> <20110106092048.GA14506@openss7.org> <4D2602D5.30608@isi.edu> <4D260555.8050901@gont.com.ar> <4D26071C.30303@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4D26071C.30303@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tsvwg list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:36:27 -0000

As a followup to the note below, I'd like to raise a separate point of 
discussion.

On 1/6/2011 10:17 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
...
> I'm getting a bit tired of separate docs for each individual issue.

I'd really like to see some time spent at each WG meeting, and 
periodically on the list (TSVWG and TCPM at least, but all WGs would 
benefit from this, IMO), addressing:

- what CAN be done (vs what can't)
- what SHOULD be done
- HOW to do it, once decided
- prioritization of WHEN to do it, given the above

Right now, we tend to ask the first question only.

What does that mean to this most recent discussion?

- issues that are not related should be separated out
	an RFC is not an opportunity for a shopping list

- separate issues should be considered independently

- just because we agree on an issue does NOT mean an RFC is warranted

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email