[PRoberts@MEGISTO.com: story about MIP WG experience]

[Aaron Falk]

I asked Phil to send me a followup on a conversation we had yesterday.
I think this is further support for careful crafting of wg charter
scope statements.  Also, it supports a need for educating chairs on
how to spot when there isn't a consensus in the community to pursue
technology and what to do in that situation.

--aaron

----- Forwarded message from Phil Roberts <PRoberts@MEGISTO.com> -----

From: Phil Roberts <PRoberts@MEGISTO.com>
To: "'falk@isi.edu'" <falk@ISI.EDU>
Cc: Phil Roberts <PRoberts@MEGISTO.com>
Subject: story about MIP WG experience
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:23:55 -0500

 
Here's the experience.
 
We chartered some work based on constituency for investigating fast
handoff enhancements for MIPv4 and for MIPv6.  After doing quite a bit
of work on MIPv4 for some reason in a subsequent WG meeting we asked
how many people were implementing the spec.  Only 3 or 4 hands went
up.  And of those, only 1 thought they might have a deployment
scenario in mind.  We've decided to publish this as experimental as a
recognition for the effort that went into the production of the spec.
We still have FMIPv6 work going on, but it somewhat hard to determine
what the realistic deployment scenario for this is, and in what
timeframe.
 
It might be beneficial to have more guidelines about what work to
adopt as work items whether when determining what a WG's charter is,
or later, to refine the selection of work items beyond whether there
is a constituency in the working group who wants to spend cycles
working on it.  How much work that is research should be pursued in
working groups of the IETF?
 
Some guidelines for working group chairs might help us constrain how
many IESG cycles are spent overseeing work that has limited deployment
possibilities and thus is of a lower priority than more pressing
demands.
 

----- End forwarded message -----