RE: Bof at next IETF?

[Parviz Yegani <pyegani@cisco.com>]

David,

Comments inline...

At 11:42 AM 2/10/2004 -0500, Nelson, David wrote:
> 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.

At RADEXT BOF at IETF 58 we discussed this issue and there was substantial
support for creating a new WG, an attempt to find a home for the drafts on 
Radius
extensions. I'm a bit puzzled now that how your statement above "having a 
formal WG
is not a prerequisite to doing work on the drafts" would support what we 
discussed
and generally agreed at that meeting.

> 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.

Having a RADEXT BOF at IETF 59 would certainly help resolve the charter
issue. Is it too late to have a BOF at IETF next month in Seoul?

Thanks,
Parviz


> -- 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/>


--
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/>