RE: Ecosystems cost of additional specs (RE: Please re ad - proposed WG termination)

>On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, H.K. Jerry Chu wrote:
>
>> ...
>> <snip>
>>
>>> In any case, I think the debate has played itself out and the virtual hum
>>> says to proceed.
>>
>> Actually a similar debate and virtual hum already happened a couple of
>> years ago, before the proposal was accepted as a work item for the WG.
>
>There have been other, more recent, agreements/hums too. The connected mode 
>draft became a working group draft late last year/early this year.
>
>> So the debate in the past couple of weeks, although interesting and may
>> even be educational for the late comers, is mostly moot.
>
>Wasn't the query whether the wg should continue and if there was interest 
>in the specification? Why would that make the 'virtual hum' now moot?

It was moot to debate the usefulness of IPoIB-CM because it wouldn't
have been added to the WG charter in late 2002 if it weren't considered
useful by the majority.

We don't need another hum this time. What we need is *enough* people to
make commitment to review and get the work done.

Jerry

>
>>
>> The decision facing the working group now is to either have enough
>> people committed to reviewing and producing a high quality standard,
>> or have the WG disbanded. We will have to decide soon.
>
>I thought the discussion over the last few days was answering the question
>of WG continuance.  In any case, I'm committed to continuing to work on the 
>draft and bringing it to publication.
>
>Vivek
>
>
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>> So, I'll go quiet unless someone has a specific issue or
>>> wants to continue the debate for some other reason.  Mark me down as not
>>> supporting the hum which is likely just me in this regard.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IPoverIB mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib
>>
>>