RE: Bof at next IETF?

[Avi Lior <avi@bridgewatersystems.com>]

John,
Thanx for the reply.  

First I will highlight this:
You said:
> 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: john.loughney@nokia.com [mailto:john.loughney@nokia.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 2:41 PM
> To: avi@bridgewatersystems.com; pyegani@cisco.com; 
> dromasca@avaya.com; dnelson@enterasys.com; 
> radiusext@ops.ietf.org; aboba@internaut.com
> 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
WGs.

> > 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
people.

But who cares.  Why should this minor point stall us?
 
> > Current partial listing(as obtained from the list)
> 

> John
> 

--
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/>