Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> fwiw - when I was an AD dealing with the examples that Mike mentions
> was just what the area workings groups (tsvwg, opswg, ...) were created
> to handle
opsawg did not have the bandwidth to deal with all the things that were
lumped in on it. More importantly, the vast diversity of people on the list
meant that there were little in common, and it is hard to get the
cross-review needed to make progress. People subscribing to the list
experience that 90% of the content isn't for them, and then they miss the 10%
that is relevant.
(OPSAWG has gotten much better recently)
So I wouldn't get rid of the area catch-all working groups, they serve some
purpose, but they do not successfully deal with what MSJ suggested.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
