On 29 Nov 2012, at 18:51, SM <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Ed,
> At 06:54 29-11-2012, Edward Lewis wrote:
>> Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs seem to 
>> be WG's that have already been meeting in secret.  I agree with that.  At 
>> the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled in sessions with BOFs and found that 
>> the ones I chose seemed as if they were already on the way to a 
>> predetermined solution.  Only one had a presentation trying to set up the 
>> problem to be solved, others just had detailed talks on draft solutions.  In 
>> one there was a complaint that the mail list wasn't very active - not a WG, 
>> a BOF!  Not very engaging.

The complaint about a quiet mail list may have been a comment I made at the 
mdnsext BoF.  The reason for that is that the guidance we have for holding a 
BoF (RFC 5434) recommends forming a public mail list a couple of months before 
the IETF meeting where the BoF is planned and to have substantive list 
discussion in advance of the BoF, which should help form a solid problem 
statement and draft charter.

>  Extensions of the Bonjour Protocol Suite (mdnsext) BoF
> 
> The agenda [5] mentions "Goals of the BoF" with a link.  I don't recall 
> whether any proposed solution was discussed.

Some views on potential solutions were made at the mic in the BoF.  But the 
draft that was presented was a requirements draft, not a solutions one. I'll 
speak to Ralph soon about moving this forward. 

>> Bringing in baked work because there are multiple independent and 
>> non-interoperable solutions is what the IETF is all about.  Bringing in a 
>> baked specification just to get a stamp on it is not.

The former is a driver for mdnsext, i.e. a number of vendors producing 
potentially non-interoperable mDNS proxying solutions. I don't see a problem 
with the latter, especially if it documents something useful that is otherwise 
opaque.

Certainly some WG lists have a lot of traffic, and on lists it's easy for a 
small number of vocal people to dominate the discussion, which is less likely 
to happen face to face (where people have to queue and take turns).

Tim

Reply via email to