Re: BoF slot applied for...

[Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>]

At 1:28 PM -0500 1/31/02, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>The draft Charter-like statement you append below strikes me as overly
>broad and insufficiently crisp.  IMHO, it would be very worthwhile to
>try editing the draft before MSP to come up with something more narrowly
>scoped and more precisely worded.  After watching IETF WGs for years now,
>my experience is very consistent that the most successful WGs have crisp,
>clear, narrow, charters so that there is a natural tight focus to the WG
>activities.

Then let's begin a thread on this.  The statement I gave was mostly to
generate a hint to the agenda-makers as to what we are after.  Also,
consider that I sent this off will a rather small set of reviewers (1), so
there are bound to be missing elements.

Yes, a WG charter needs to be tighter, but I didn't want to propose a tight
statement without proper review.  I've gone from BoF to WG before, many
changes can and do happen.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.