[R-C] BoF approved

[John Leslie]

Michael Welzl <michawe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>...
> 
> Having read RFC5434, I think a general goal, and the role of Colin and  
> me, is to try to maximize consensus and minimize the amount of  
> discussion-at-the-BOF beforehand.

   From RFC5434:
] 
] In many cases, however, the intent is to form a WG. In those cases, the
] goal of the BOF is to demonstrate that the community has agreement that:
] 
] - there is a problem that needs solving, and the IETF is the right
]   group to attempt solving it.

   IMHO this is already given: alas, the problem is ill-defined...

] - there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on the
]   problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.).
] 
] - the scope of the problem is well defined and understood, that
]   is, people generally understand what the WG will work on (and
]   what it won't) and what its actual deliverables will be.

   This needs work. IMHO it will need work _at_ the BoF.

] - there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e.,
]   proposed documents) are the right set.
] 
] - it is believed that the WG has a reasonable probability of
]   having success (i.e., in completing the deliverables in its
]   charter in a timely fashion).

   Generally this is easy enough if the deliverables are properly
defined. (This tends to require work before the BoF...)

> So naturally I disagree, for now, that these things need to be  
> discussed there. Let's try to agree on as much as possible before it.

   Restoring the context:
> Bob Briscoe wrote:
> 
>> My personal opinion is that this w-g should be trying to solve the
>> problem. And the problem has three halves:
>> * RTP harming elastic
>> * elastic harming RTP
>> * network arbitrating between the two
>
John Leslie wrote:
> 
>  Clearly the first needs to be in-scope for the WG.
>
>  IMHO the other two halves need to be discussed at the BoF.

   Alas, I need to guess what Michael disagrees _with_...

   I guess he disagrees that the BoF needs any discussion of how
* elastic traffic might harm RTP, and
* network-layer might arbitrate between the two.

   Basically, I claim these two questions are insufficiently understood;
thus I think some discussion at the BoF will be needed.

--
John Leslie <john at jlc.net>