Subject: Re: [ftpext] Working on the ftpext2 BOF agenda...

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:04:47 +0000

> looking at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart , it
> says this requires WebEX? do we just click the link, or do we need to
> sign up for anything?

We won't be using WebEx, and I don't know why the session was requested that way.  We'll just use the audio feed and jabber, and I'll get one or more volunteers to "channel" jabber comments to the microphone.

> for others, information on audio streaming & jabber chatroom are here:
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/78/remote-participation.html

Barry, as chair

---

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:20:21 -0400

>> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/78/remote-participation.html

thanks, Barry. this was my first IETF BOF & it went well, at least
from the audio feed/jabber.

a final decision was not made on whether to form a Working Group.

a number of people raised their hands that they would review drafts.
this mailing list now has 23 subscribers. I've tried to contact as
many people individually, including all the expired draft authors,
along with mailing lists and application authors.

I'm wondering what the pros/cons are of WG creation? is there much
overhead for a total failure of a WG (besides those involved, which
would also be involved independently)?

the other route is independent submissions, of which there are at
least 5 (not counting the 2 from behave) at the moment. which seems to
be more work for an AD.

a WG raises the profile of what we are doing, and possibly more people
will join in. as mentioned in the BOF, we can do all work over the
mailing lists, not require face to face meetings, and work around busy
people's schedules so they can collaborate when convenient.

one nice thing, most of the active drafts are relatively conservative
in their ideas. there's nothing too wacky going on. hash, hosts,
deflate, ftp-uri, some of these commands have been around a decade or
longer and we are just standardizing their use. I think this is very
worthwhile for interoperability on its own.

again, I'm volunteering for any cat herding or admin work I can do to
keep this rolling.
-- 
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads

---

From: "William F. Maton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 15:34:04 -0400 (EDT)

> from the audio feed/jabber.

The audio was very clear, nice job to the a/v guys.

> along with mailing lists and application authors.

I'm in sporadic contact with a few in my corner, I've sent out email to 
see if there's any interest.

> least 5 (not counting the 2 from behave) at the moment. which seems to

I suppose that depends.  Do the ADs feel they have time to look at 
independent IDs, or is the group forming from the BOF have sufficient 
credible drive to give confidence in the ADs to delegate the work to a new 
WG?  Someone said critical mass, so I think that's the next step to 
achieve.  That can be demonstrated through the ftpext mailing list 
discussions.

> again, I'm volunteering for any cat herding or admin work I can do to

+1, I as well.

wfms