> On this point I'm in total agreement with Randy ... I've still have a
> problem with this ...why come to IETF with this work ?
note that i do not have the expertise to have a position on this
with respect to jabber. this whole sub-thread was really my
*process* reaction to randall's
> Given that this is a deployed product, I tend to agree. The
> work is going to get done; we may as well help it to get done
> as well as possible.
being quite unbounded. and i suggested some bounds
> relevance, expertise, non-conflict with other standards
> groups, change control, etc. are important criteria.
i was merely raising a formal process issue, and not necessarily an
issue i have with jabber per se.
> it is perfectly reasonable to kill off or delay WG charting
> because of the current IESG work load, especially in the
> applications area.
i don't buy this. if the wannabe-wg is appropriate ietf work, the
folk are there with their homework done and ready to roll, the
drafts are in play with change control in the ietf, there is an
active constructive mailing list, and a charter is close to being
good, then iesg load is no excuse. if this is a problem, then we
need to, and will, fix it.
randy