On 4/5/21 18:31, Michael StJohns wrote:
On 4/5/2021 7:11 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
For some reason I can't find the original announcement, so I'll just do this bare.
Given the general language of RFC 2418, my best take is that it's inappropriate for the IETF to charter a working group on this topic. It's not a technical topic, and it does not fit the general WG model.
To my best recollection (which means I may have missed one), we've never chartered a WG solely for the purpose of writing documents that purport to modify the way the IETF does business.
*sigh* Ignore the above. Joel H reminded me of Poised, Poisson of the previous century and Newtrk of the previous decade. I'm sure there are others.
Yeah, it's pretty much every working group that has ever formed in the GEN area:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/concluded/#WGs-general-area
/a
Go take a detailed look at that list. Roughly 1/2 of them are
BOFs that never produced anything, roughly 1/4th are WGs that
mostly didn't produce anything (unclear if the IDs they produced
resulted in RFCs). The remainder were targeted groups that were
dealing with moving us from a known point A to a known point B.
E.g. we knew what what we needed to do, we were pretty sure we
knew the neighborhood where we needed to arrive, we just weren't
sure how to do it.
I'd place IASA2, the multiple instantiations of the Nomcom
process (poised, poisson, nomcom), ianaplan, mtgvenue and the IPR
groups in that last category. IASA2, ianaplan and mtgvenue are
all recent creations. Finally, IASA2 and ianaplan had some hefty
legal requirements driving them.
TERM has few of those characteristics: there's no agreement on
where point B needs to be and not a lot of agreement on where
point A actually is.
But yes, my initial statement was way off.
Later, Mike
