[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Bof at next IETF?
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/>