On Mar 20, 2007, at 10:46 PM, Luca Martini wrote:
However GROW is getting marginal. I believe that there is a time
for every WG to finish and remaining work moved to the area meeting.
we can always find one more things , but that does not mean that
the working group needs to go on meeting and consuming IETF resources.
Luca
Hi Luca, It seems to me that the statement like
"there is a time for every WG to finish and remaining work
moved to the area meeting."
is true in general, especially when applied to WGs working on
protocol development. i.e. after the major development work is done,
the "tailing" work seems more appropriately moving to area meetings
instead of dragging on a separate WG for another long while.
The case in hand about GROW, on the other hand, seems to differ from
the above general statement in 2 aspects:
- GROW: global routing and operations working group (if I remembered
right). from my personal view, this type of work does not
necessarily have distinguished phases as protocol development effort.
- in particular, new efforts that have been on GROW plate are needed
now.
Yes IESG may decide to close GROW and set up another one, it is just
unclear to me what value could be gained from going through the
steps of BOF->approval->WG one more time.
If we keep GROW, the only work needed is to name a new chair or a
pair of co-chbairs.
Just my 2 cents.
I don't think that closing down grow is a good idea.
/Loa
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
