--On 22. juli 2004 10:55 -0700 Aaron Falk <falk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Perhaps we should raise the bar on what it takes to get a slot at the
IETF meeting. For example, try to come up with some objective criteria
for what deserves a 1hr slot, 2hrs, multiple, etc. This might even
nudge groups into making some additional progress ("you can't have your
meeting if you don't hit a/some milestones").
note - there aren't that many multiple-slot WGs. Here's the list a quick scan came up with for this meeting:
avt-- dnsext-- geopriv-- (2x1h) l2vpn-- (2x1h) marid-- mip6-- nsis-- radext-- rohc-- (2x1h) simple-- sip-- sipping-- v6ops-- xcon-- aaa-- (2x1h) opsec-- (2x1h)
16, out of which 5 clearly are 2-hour requests that were put into 1-hour slots. So outlawing double-slot WGs altogehter gives us 11 more slots to play with.
That's more than adding a Thursday evening slot gives us - but it's not much..... if we want to do something that really reduces demand for slots, we have to force the "normal" size of a meeting down to 1 hour (somehow).
Personally, I'm as worried about this list:
adslmib atompub bridge disman ediint fax idmr idwg impp iporpr ipp ipr ipsec ipseckey ipsp iptel kink l2tpext megaco mipshop msgtrk nntpext openpgp policy pppext problem ptomaine rap sacred seamoby secsh send sigtran snmpconf spirits ssm stime syslog tewg tls trade usefor vpim xmpp zeroconf
It's the set of WGs that are (based on my quick count) NOT meeting in San Diego - 46 WGs. Some (like ipr and problem) are just waiting for their RFCs to pop out before closing down.... but others may not be....
Assuming no liability for possible errors.....
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf