On 2023-07-20, at 14:52, Christian Amsüss <christ...@amsuess.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 06:57:38PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: >> I don't think this belongs in t2trg, but I don't object. >> maybe it goes into ACE or IOTOPS. > > I'll appreciate if any of those wanted it; first people I've talked to > about it pointed me to T2TRG. I'll try to get a hold of the chairs on > the virtual hallways.
I think the point is that each WG has started something and then found that really writing it up is a bit more work than it initially seemed. E.g., 7228bis (LWIG, soon IOTOPS?) has some relevant text. https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lwig-7228bis-00.html#section-4.4 If the focus of the document is on designing a protocol or an operational practice, an IETF WG is about right. If the focus is on understanding the design space and documenting existing approaches and evaluating them, T2TRG is right. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
