RE: Bof at next IETF?

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

I have had some off-list discussions about the timing and progress of
the nascent RADEXT WG, and have summarized my comments on this issue for
the list, as I'm sure others have the same questions.

While not have a RADEXT BOF at IETF 59 may be seen to create unfortunate
timing, having a formal WG is not a prerequisite to doing work on the
drafts.  Having volunteers to act as document editors, volunteers to do
careful reviews, and a reflector list over which to communicate is all
that is needed... for now.  Some of the submitted drafts, IMHO, are
still out of scope for our charter.  I'd like to see more progress in
that area before we formally ask the IESG to charter the WG.  Formally
starting the WG, before the charter and scope issues are generally
agreed upon will not, IMHO, accelerate the desired end product.

-- Dave



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>