Subject: [PMOL] Substance of PMOL work

From: "Loki Jorgenson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 18:45:17 -0700

I would suggest that a reasonable rule-of-thumb could be established for
routinely distinguishing between work that belongs primarily in the
proposed PMOL WG and work that arises in others and should remain there.
It seems given that there may always be a need to call on the expertise
of another WG in the process - it seems likely from the discussions to
date that there will be an integral cross-disciplinary nature to this
WG.

For example, following Daryl's comments, if a given draft can be
described by a series of attributes (e.g. SIP, performance metric) and
they can be ordered as to their significance, they might be compared to
the charter of the respective WGs.  In this case, it would seem to me
that the malas draft is primarily about performance metrics and SIP is a
qualifier (rather than the other way around).  The core competency then
should be performance-focused.

> On Thu, 2007-08-03 at 12:52 -0400, Daryl Malas wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree with keeping your drafts in AVT.  I have not read
> your drafts yet, but if they are "performance metrics" based drafts;
> they should be in this new WG.  As with my SIP metrics draft, the
> SIPPING WG has provided a good forum to receive feedback; however, the
> draft is not truly within the charter of the group.  Many drafts that
> exist between other WG's are given an opportunity to be reviewed by
> other WG's in order to make sure the appropriate expertise is able to
> evaluate it.   For example, the ICE draft developed in the MMUSIC WG
has
> been reviewed several times in the SIPPING and/or SIP WG's.  Although
it
> is an MMUSIC WG item, it has required expertise review in these other
> WG's.  I see a similar process occurring with this proposed WG.  The
> metrics drafts will be introduced, developed, and reviewed in this
> draft; however, along the way, they need to be presented in other WG's
> such as AVT and SIPPING in order to gain the additional expertise
> perspective.
>
> > On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 11:26 -0400, Alan Clark wrote:
> > for example it may make sense for the current work
> > on voice/video/audio metrics to stay within AVT due to the domain
knowledge
> > required.  

-- Loki 

_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol