I don't understand your line of reasoning for turning away this
work.
Actually, I thought Sam's note was quite clear. And I applaud his
willingness to say no, if the effort isn't ready for another BOF.
Speaking as a former AD, it can be a very tough call to say yes/no to
a BOF. Unfortunately, there is often interest, but interest is most
definitely not enough. There needs to be more than interest. There
needs to be a reasonable chance of a positive, forward-moving
outcome. But in my experience, it is often the case with 2nd BOF
requests that substantative issues have been raised already (on the
list or in a previous BOF), but have not subsequently been adequately
addressed by the BOF proponents. In such cases, another BOF will
more-or-less just rehash what is already known, with no change in the
overall status. It is the AD's job to judge whether that is likely to
happen (in which case "no" is the right answer).
For a second BOF, a real danger with allowing it to go forward is that
it raises false expectations on where things are heading. There is a
semi-written rule that says "no more than 2 BOFs". Thus, the second
BOF needs to lead to a WG or an end of the effort. Once the second BOF
has happened, there is (too often) an expectation that a WG will be
formed.
You note that there is a lot of interest, and I know that there has only
been one person who disagrees with the IFARE proposal (perhaps I*
members' opinions are afforded special status?).
Yes, I* opinions are afforded special status. They are our chosen
leadership, and with leadership comes responsibility. Responsibility
to be sure that if the work goes forward, it is well scoped, has a
reasonable likelyhood of success, etc. And please remember, the IETF
is a meritocracy. So please don't raise the "I* has special status"
issue as if it were some kind of unfair or biased way of doing things.
If you really want to help, at least now, please schedule the BoF and
make suggestions on how to build support for the work (we have more than
a month before the Chicago meeting). Otherwise, it might be worthwhile
to remove the IESG note in 4285.
I'd suggest you read (or reread) draft-narten-successful-bof-02.txt.
It is the BOF proponent's job to build support for an effort. If they
cannot do so, that (for better or worse) says something about the
importance/interest in the work. And note that "support" means not
just finding those in favor of an effort, but getting those opposed to
the effort (as currently scoped) to be satisfied by rescoping the
effort or addressing their concerns (and again, there is a judgement
here). I.e., there needs to be a sufficient degree of consensus on
having the work go forward (with an agreed upon scope, etc.).
Thomas
