[R-C] BoF approved

[Michael Welzl]

Hi,


On Jul 8, 2012, at 7:54 PM, John Leslie wrote:

> 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_...

Very sorry! Below:


>   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.

Yes, that's the technical point it was about.

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

Your phrasing was "need to be discussed at the BoF", which I took to  
mean that we can't agree about these things beforehand. I think we  
can, and I think we should try. If that doesn't work, yes, sure, we  
can discuss it there.

Cheers,
Michael