[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Bof at next IETF?
Thanx for the reply.
First I will highlight this:
> And how do all of these related to the proposed charter and
> what is the current support for including this work in the
> WG? These are the kind of discussions which are needed, imo.
So how is *not* having a BOF going to help progress this further?
Other comments are inline.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:41 PM
> To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
> email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
> email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: Bof at next IETF?
> Hi Avi,
> > John can you share with us what standard do you use to
> > measure progress.
> Revision of drafts well before the draft cut-off date is
> a good indicator.
Well, I can live with that but why hold us to a higher mark then say other
> > And can you please comment on how much work will be done if there
> > wasn't a working group vs. how much work will be done if
> there was a
> > working group?
> Should it make a difference? What extra does a WG do to make
> the work happen?
In my opinion tons of difference. For one it creates an open place where
people can talk/comment about related topics. But I guess some folks behave
around here as if this is a closed community.
> > As well, in 58 8 to 10 people have agreed to do the majority of the
> > work. Is this not enough?
> My understanding was that progress on the drafts was expected
> and discussion on the charter was to take place so that a
> draft charter could be sent to the IESG. We really haven't
> discussed the charter.
Regarding the Charter. There were discussions. And a tone of discussion on
subtypes and other related issues.
>But at the last meeting, I remember
> that a significant number of people thought it would be best
> for the WG to be AAA Extensions, not just RADIUS extensions,
> but we haven't discussed that on the mailing list.
Not exactly my recollection at all. First and foremost it was a RADIUS
gathering. We did agree to consider whether this should also be a Diameter
extension group. I wouldn't characterise it as a significant number of
But who cares. Why should this minor point stall us?
> > Current partial listing(as obtained from the list)
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.