Lars> An example is PPVPN, which is chartered to work on specification of
Lars> requirements, with new protocol work being explicitly out-of-scope.
Lars> However, some current PPVPN IDs (and several more targetted at it)
Lars> read more like solution documents
>From the PPVPN charter:
This working group is responsible for defining and
specifying a limited number of sets of solutions for
supporting provider-provisioned virtual private networks
(PPVPNs).
It is somewhat difficult to define and specify a solution without writing
something that "reads like a solution document".
Lars> for various existing vendor schemes,
>From the PPVPN charter:
The working group is expected to consider at least three
specific approaches
Various "existing vendor schemes" are then explicitly mentioned.
Lars> new protocol work being explicitly out-of-scope [but PPVPN documents
Lars> are] specifying packet headers and MIBs
In some cases the PPVPN docs do have protocol work in them which needs to be
moved to another working group. But I don't think this is a case of the
group going beyond its charter, it's just a matter of the individual
contributors getting the time to divide up the documents properly. In other
cases, the PPVPN docs just specify how existing protocols are to be used to
achieve various functions.
I don't think defining a MIB counts as "new protocol work".