Michael, > On Jul 28, 2025, at 12:59 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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) On the other hand, I think the INT Area w.g. works pretty well at handling things like this. Bob > > 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: Message signed with OpenPGP
