Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot >>> of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest >>> (which still exists BTW). The rule for diffserv@xxxxxxxx was "must >>> be relevant to a chartered work item" and the rule for diffserv-interest >>> was "must be relevant to diffserv technology." >> Though I never participated in diffserv WG activities, which was >> chartered wrongly from the beginning, > As a matter of fact, I believe that the insistence of the ADs > involved on a very tightly drawn charter was the main reason that > the WG succeeded. As your measure of success is not in technology but in progressing standardization process, you say the WG succeeded. >>> People only interested >>> in the standards work simply ignored the -interest list. >> They ignored the -interest list and the technology. > Are you referring to the many vendors that implemented > it, or the many enterprises that have deployed it? I'm referring to relatively small number of enterprises that have depoyed it. Masataka Ohta _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf