Michael Welzl <michawe@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@jlc.net>