We also recommend that the evaluation criteria for success are made
clear before the start of the experiment.
Ok. I assume you mean evaluation criteria for the success of the
experiment,
not the success of an SG?
Yes, the criteria for the success of the experiment.
--Olaf
Dear Colleagues,
The IAB has discussed the study group experiment proposed in draft-
aboba-sg-experiment-02.txt.
The IAB does not oppose a scoped experiment.
However, As the IAB reviews BOFs and WG charters (see RFC 2850
section 2.1) as part of its architectural oversight function, we
Thanks to IAB for the review. Inline:
The IAB does not oppose a scoped experiment.
Great!
However, As the IAB reviews BOFs and WG charters (see RFC 2850 section
2.1) as part of its architectural oversight function, we believe that
the IAB should also review SG charters.
Of course. I think
Keith,
okay, just to be clear - I'm not sure it should be assumed that SGs
follow the same rules as for WGs - especially if SGs can be closed or
invitation only like design teams can.
I like openness, but I also recognize that the IETF culture tends to
interpret openness broadly enough to
I think we should explicitly say that SGs follow WG rules.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I think we should explicitly say that SGs follow WG rules.
I would agree. There are several reasons why this is probably the best
way to go. Aside from the openness issues, the amount of extra work
created for the IESG/Secretariat to have a different set of rules would be
very substantial.
I would suggest that if a study goup is going to be effective it might well
want to meet somewhere other than an IETF plenary.
If you are going to study phishing then talk to bankers, lawyers and law
enforcement. If you are going to study deployment of IPv6 talk to ISPs and to
equipment
I have a few questions about this proposal:
- to what extent is a SG allowed to frame the problem to be solved in a
way that would constrain a later WG if one were chartered? it's clear
that they're not supposed to develop protocol specs, but what about
requirements? goals? models of
Keith,
I have a few questions about this proposal:
- to what extent is a SG allowed to frame the problem to be solved in a
way that would constrain a later WG if one were chartered? it's clear
that they're not supposed to develop protocol specs, but what about
requirements? goals? models
okay, just to be clear - I'm not sure it should be assumed that SGs
follow the same rules as for WGs - especially if SGs can be closed or
invitation only like design teams can.
I like openness, but I also recognize that the IETF culture tends to
interpret openness broadly enough to mean that
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Experiment in Study Group Formation within the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF) '
draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02.txt as an Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next
11 matches
Mail list logo
