John Klensin said:
" (2) As the discussion goes on, if appears to me that, in
practice, an SG is little more than a normal WG with an
unusual set of charter-time constraints."
No, because WGs cannot be formed to come up with a WG charter (or
RFC 2418 Section 2.1 criteria for WG formation).
"The worst risk associated with introducing
SGs is that, just as we have evolved from "A BOF, or
sometimes two, are optional steps to help get a WG
organized and focused" to "BOFs are almost always
required", we might evolve into the expectation of
spending one or more IETF meetings in SGs, as well as an
additional meeting or two in BOFs, before generating a
typical WG charter."
I agree that this would be a bad thing -- and that's why the draft
indicates that the experiment should not short-circuit creation of WGs
that already satisfy the criteria. In any case, the experiment only lasts
18 months, and it seems unlikely that the IETF would devolve that quickly.
"In the notation of Lakshminath's
recent chart, we have moved from "Idea --> WG" being
the normal case, to "Idea --> BoF-1 --> BoF-2 --> WG"
being the normal case"
Do the data back up this assertion? Quite a few WGs have been
formed after a single BOF, or if two BOFs were required, then the agenda of the
second BOF was more like that of a WG than a BOF.
"to some risk of making "Idea --> BoF-1 --> Bof-2 --> SG --> WG" normal."
I am personally not very enamored of this case. If the second BoF fails,
my inclination would be say "that's it". I'm also not sure if a SG can
be formed without a first BOF, because the document currently states that
interest is a pre-requisite for SG formation, and how do we gauge that
without at least one BOF?
So IMHO, the "common case" is:
Idea --> BoF --> SG --> WG or nothing.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf