RE: Comments on draft-aboba-sg-experiment-02

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@xxxxxxxxx> · Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:28:06 +0200

Yes, and this translates in IETF speech into having a 
viable technical concept which is caught in a sound charter, proved resources 
and community interest plus early code and individual I-Ds as 
very desirable additions. 

A 
SG process would not replace those, but could help achieve them in a more 
structured manner, or alternatively help the community and the IESG realize that 
it's not the case or the time for this work to happen. 

Dan

  From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 

  Dan (and Gab) have been around the IEEE a lot more than 
  I have, but one of the translation issues I'm wondering about is that the 
  go/no-go decision in IEEE seems a lot more straighforward in IEEE than in IETF 
  - if you have a plausible PAR and reasonable answers to the Five Criteria, 
  doesn't the decision tend toward "go"? 

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf