On 23/03/12 4:43 AM, "Eric Osterweil" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Comments? > > This is a large amount of travel and I think it unduly reduces the ability of > many of the wg's members to participate at the same level as they do today. I > think this is a bad idea. >
I predict travel related to a particular work focus a full 13-15 months in advance of going somewhere, there is generally some contingency, but not to these levels - as I exist as a part of a healthy budget process. I expect many others would be in a similar or worse situation as to their travel flexibility. I accept that the drivers/authors of the BGPSEC work along with chairs and ADs want to maintain momentum - but given the importance of this topic and the many many layers it crosses (in some cases without meaning to), both breadth and depth of participation to produce the best effort (including palatability) result is needed over trying to meet WG milestones. I expect that can only be satisfied with ML participation and IETF attendance. So I also think adding interim meetings is bad. Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
