Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> A practice I used when I was diffserv chair and we had quite a lot
>>> of off-topic postings was to create a second list, diffserv-interest
>>> (which still exists BTW). The rule for [EMAIL PROTECTED] was "must
>>> be relevant to a chartered work item" and the rule for diffserv-interest
>>> was "must be relevant to diffserv technology."
>> Though I never participated in diffserv WG activities, which was
>> chartered wrongly from the beginning,
> As a matter of fact, I believe that the insistence of the ADs
> involved on a very tightly drawn charter was the main reason that
> the WG succeeded.
As your measure of success is not in technology but in progressing
standardization process, you say the WG succeeded.
>>> People only interested
>>> in the standards work simply ignored the -interest list.
>> They ignored the -interest list and the technology.
> Are you referring to the many vendors that implemented
> it, or the many enterprises that have deployed it?
I'm referring to relatively small number of enterprises that
have depoyed it.
Masataka Ohta
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
