On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 11:41 AM Pete Resnick <resnick= [email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, I helped in crafting that sentence and Eliot's view is what we were > going for: It's not that you need to be a large provider, but the > expectation is that if you've got implementation and can show that it > interoperates at reasonable scale, that should be taken as evidence that > we're on the right path and win out over other choices. That is, we want to > say overtly and up front in the charter that we're taking the "running > code" part seriously and the chairs are empowered to enforce that. If > that's not clear from the current text, I'm sure wordsmithing would be > welcome. > A small operator or individual with a good idea that lacks the resources to test at scale shouldn't be excluded unnecessarily. Are the large operators reasonably willing to test promising ideas even if they're not their own? That's probably something that can be captured in the charter, but it's worth at least asking that question. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
