Re: San Diego

>At the last IETF, I asked for some feedback from USWG re whether they
>thought WEIRD should declare its experiment done and close down, or keep
>going.  The consensus was that many thought WEIRD should keep going.  Of
>course, WEIRD didn't meet last time, so it's not like actually asking the
>WG itself, so I thought I would ask you yourself.

I may have missed something back at the beginning, but isn't WEIRD 
supposed to be an ongoing effort, rather than a goal-oriented task 
like protocol development?  I mean, we can't just up and declare 
one day that the public are sufficiently elucidated, wash our hands and 
head home, can we?

>One thing that Chris and I have talked about is getting a co-chair.  Is it
>worth conning, uh, drafting someone to assist our WEIRD leader (couldn't
>resist that one :-), or do you all feel the WG is a loss?  

I should think that the number of responses you get to this 
query will be a fairly accurate reflection of whether or not the 
group is defunct.

I've forwarded a few "WEIRD Questions" from my Web site to the 
group and gotten zero response.  Not even crickets.  From that 
experience I would have to say that, as a working group, there isn't 
much to go on here. But maybe it was just bad timing.

Cheers,

RGF

Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP
Information Systems Security Officer
National Business Center
U. S. Dept. of the Interior
[email protected]
========================================
 Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.
========================================