Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG

Bob, I think Nathaniel is saying to keep CAP and the RFC revisions 
separate.  I don't think he meant not finish the CAP issue and get it to 
last call (soon!)



"RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email protected]> 
Sent by: [email protected]
08/02/2004 17:52

To
Nathaniel Borenstein <[email protected]>
cc
IETF calsch WG <[email protected]>, Ted Hardie <[email protected]>, 
Scott Hollenbeck <[email protected]>
Subject
Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG








On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:

> I am opposed to rechartering the calsch group.  My preference would be
> to shut down the group entirely, and then start a new WG that is
> narrowly focused on revisions to RFCs 2445-7.  I am particularly
> skeptical that work on CAP or any similar protocol based on those RFC's
> should be done in the same group that is in the middle of revising them.
> I think progress will be much faster if we divide and conquer, and that
> the (substantial) revisions that are necessary in the base RFC's
> justifies a new group of its own.  -- Nathaniel

Nathaniel:  just to be clear, the proposed charter I submitted has just
the one item, completing CAP, and updates the several-year-old calsch
charter which is now entirely obsolete.  I might interpret your comment as
saying that this WG should not even adopt this amended minimal charter,
should not complete CAP, and should close immediately.  Or you might be
just disagreeing with the idea that 2445-7 revisions be in scope.  Can you
clarify?

 - RL "Bob"