--On Thursday, August 25, 2022 18:14 -0400 Michael Richardson
<mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > What I don't get from this is notice of if the work item
> was delivered > or what was delivered - which is not
> always the same as the thing > promised.
>
> > We used to do WG reports in SAAG until we stopped
> because there were > better things to do. But one thing
> that we lost from that is a wrap up > of what was
> delivered/achieved. Might be useful just to do the >
> recharterings and closures. Probably best to do that before
> they happen > rather than waiting for them to happen since
> many WGs are effectively > closed long before they are
> shut.
>
> I think that one way is to have IAB or Area (SAAG) tech talks.
> I pushed for this to happen for DOTS, for instance.
>
> That winds up on youtube, and actually provides a good deal of
> useful content for those who were not at the IETF at the time.
> I wish we had such stuff from the 1990s...
Oddly, for part of the 1990s, we have a good approximation
because reports from each Area were part of the Proceedings of
each meeting. At their best, they contained both information
about the status of each WG and an overall report of how the
Area was focusing its energy and what significant issues it
faced. While I understand why that requirement was dropped,
I've often wondered whether doing so was a good idea. It was a
good tool for allowing IETF participants to get a decent
understanding of what was going on in Areas that they were not
actively following.
best,
john
