Re: Confusion about ISMS rechartering

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





In this instance, the whole point of the charter was to reach a
direction within the working group that has broad architectural impact
and then to review that decision with the community.  So, I think
Eliot and Steve's concerns are directly tied to the chartering event.

Sam, thanks for pursuing this. I had misunderstood the timeline, and thought that Eliot was raising a post-chartering issue.

As we seem to agree, such issues do arise in working groups, so the question of seeking broad review of major decisions DURING the wg process is a valid issue, albeit apparently not this time.

My own, very strong bias on situations like the current one, certainly is to make a charter as precise and complete as possible. The more a charter can state basic assumptions and constraints, the better, from what I have seen. Including conceptual and architectural impacts (or issues) can only be helpful.

--

  d/

 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 +1.408.246.8253
 dcrocker  a t ...
 WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]