Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] charter and possible path forward for draft-palet-ietf-meeting-network-requirements-01

From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:19:44 +0000

Hi Jordi,

I think it is more a question of should than can we add a milestone for this draft and work on it within the working group. There were many people who agreed that documenting the network requirements is important and a smaller number that indicated a willingness to help work with you on this draft to make sure it captures those requirements. However, there was not consensus that adopting this as a mtgvenue working group document and progressing it as an RFC was the appropriate path forward.

The recommendation from the chairs is that those interested to work with Jordi on this draft contact him directly. You can decide among yourselves the format the document should take to best meet the intended purpose of capturing the network requirements in a way that is helpful for site selection and meeting preparation.

Cheers,
Charles

-----Original Message-----
From: Mtgvenue <[email-masked]> on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, July 21, 2017 at 2:04 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Mtgvenue] charter and possible path forward for draft-palet-ietf-meeting-network-requirements-01

    Hi all,
    
    I’ve been thinking on the question raised during the meeting regarding the charter.
    
    My understanding is that different wording such as “venue selection process and criteria”, used across the charter (because the technical details are a key part of the selection criteria and on-site-survey) means that the correct place for this document is this WG. Furthermore, is quite common to add milestones to a running WG.
    
    Now, one of the private comments I got, from several folks, is that this WG don’t have the right “participants” to evaluate this document. However this is also common in many WG. Sometimes there are different sets/levels of skills in many WGs and I think we are smart enough to avoid blocking a document if we don’t have the right expertise to evaluate it, as we are confident that other folks will do it correctly.
    
    Clearly the most important people to participate in this document discussion is the participants in the NOC (in fact, NOC participants were directly contributing to the version 00 of this document in 2005/6), and people that participate in on-site-surveys for facilities, which I’m sure have not trouble if needed, to participate in a specific mailing list for this work and then report somehow, our “consensus” to the complete WG for a last call.
    
    Is that a possible path forward?
    
    Or we should have a different venue for it? Which one?
    
    Please, note that I’m not in favor of one or the other way, I just want to avoid having this document without any umbrella, as this is basically the reason it died in 2005/6 (together with draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04). I guess we could have probably saved a lot of cycles and troubles to everyone if those documents were moved forward in 2006, so let’s avoid repeating mistakes.
    
    Regards,
    Jordi

    
    **********************************************
    IPv4 is over
    Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    http://www.consulintel.es
    The IPv6 Company
    
    This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

    _______________________________________________
    Mtgvenue mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue