The way I see it the problem that this proposal tries to solve is about helping the IESG and the community to make a better decision when the forming of the working group us discussed. It is not about bringing more work to the IETF, it is about making sure to a better extent that the right work is being brought into the IETF. In the absence of such a process what we see in many cases is the formation of ad-hoc groups, which is not necessarily bad - but why not charter them with a set of clear questions which may help the IESG and the whole community reach a more educated decision? Regarding terminology, the term 'study group' is used in this proposal in a way similar to how the IEEE is using it. Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 3:30 PM > To: Eric Rescorla > Cc: Jari Arkko; ietf@xxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02 > > If I understand the purpose of this experiment it would be to > provide ADs some indication of level of interest and ability > to succeed. I see no reason why we need to formalize this > within the IETF. Furthemore, the terminology is problematic. > We are overlapping a term that is commonly used by the ITU > the way working group is used by the IETF. > Let's not make the process any more confusing than it already is. > Finally, milestones for such "study groups" seem to me inappropriate. > It may be that a topic is uninteresting for quite a while and > then picks up. ANY way to demonstrate that interest and > ability to succeed should be sufficient, regardless of how > much time has passed. > > Eliot > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf