On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
There was very little support outside of those involved in the
ieprep working group for the ieprep work.
I'd have to say that there wasn't really a clear consensus in
either direction about much of anything.
I guess I'm confused. Generally, when I see last calls on charters, I
see no discussion at all. Generally speaking, the people who want a
working group to happen are the ones who want to work in it. The
people who don't expect to work in it don't have much to say on the
topic - the routing people don't comment on network management
charters, and the internet folks don't comment on applications.
Asserting that there is consensus to do or not do anything in such a
case is pretty tough; the point is that there is a body that wants to
do the work, and the IETF does it.
What is different in this case is that there was some discussion. You
stated that you thought it should go to the ITU. Pekka agreed with
you, and Brian stated that he was wondering which way it should go.
Scott brought in the SG13 liaison, who was in the process of sending
a liaison statement to the IETF asking for certain work to be
accomplished. Martin pointed out that ATIS has a place for certain
aspects of the work. Ken, James, Bob, Janet, and myself tried to
present a case that the issues before the house were in fact
appropriate to the IETF.
Am I misremembering?
What I read is that there were some people who didn't plan to be
involved and either wanted to move the work elsewhere or were asking
the question, and some people who wanted to do the work and felt it
was appropriate to the IETF because it related to IETF protocols and
to the Internet. In most cases, people that don't plan to be involved
don't respond; in this case a few did.
I'd hate to hear that the presence of a discussion in the IETF was
taken as a lack of consensus on a topic.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf