Sorry, typo: On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 12:14 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > s/can be captured/can't be captured/ -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
