> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:04 AM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: IETF 65 BOF Announcement: Digital Identity Exchange (DIX) [snip] > In simplistic (but productive and non-sarcastic) terms, I > think things reduce to > the hurdles that an AD can/should impose prior to approving a > BOF. Some topics > warrant higher hurdles. There is ample basis for viewing DIX > as one of them, IMO. > > I think the title of Thomas Narten's draft is particularly > apt, because it > focuses on productivity rather than formal process. OK, that's a reasonable discussion point. Let me explain where I'm coming from in approving the request. I agree that this is a contentious topic. I explained the issues to several people when I was approached to hold a BOF at the Vancouver meeting. I didn't approve it then, primarily for the very reasons you've described. I approved the BOF this time not so much to consider a working group charter (note that the agenda does not include a "review charter proposal" item), but as an opportunity for the proponents to collect input from the broader IETF community in a high bandwidth environment after they have had a few months of discussion time to focus their proposal. There *is* a charter proposal floating around, but I personally believe (and list discussion seems to agree) that there are still a number of topics to explore before a charter can be seriously considered. I'm hoping that a BOF will help to identify those topics and other questions to be answered. In hindsight I probably should have recommended that the existence of the mailing list be announced much earlier. Earlier input from people like yourself, Steve Bellovin, and others who have shared opinions would be better. Since that didn't happen, though, my goal for the BOF is to try to capture a list of actions and issues for the proponents to consider as they developing their proposals. I fully expect that a second BOF will be required before a working group can be considered. -Scott- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf