RE: WG Charter Proposal v2

At 10:39 AM 3/31/2003, Chris Apple wrote:
>Comments embedded below.
>Chris.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]] 
>Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 5:12 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]; John Strassner
>Subject: Re: WG Charter Proposal v2
>
>
>In reading the proposed WG description, I found a discussion
>of this WG "was originally chartered" to deliver but I couldn't
>any statement as what the WG "is chartered" to delivered,
>
>CWA> There is language there which treats this topic as implicit.
>     I have included some additional text below to make the connection
>     between the original WG direction and the new WG direction more
>     explicit. This additional text is incorporated into the WG
>     description as included by you in the posting to which I am
>     replying now.

The added text helps... I'm still a bit confused though.  I
thought this WG concluded that it wasn't going to reach
consensus on LDUP and hence were not going to be able
to complete it and, instead, would publish what it had done
basically "as is" as experimental/informational with an
additional document which detailed the major outstanding
issues as indicated in Proposal 1 (in particular 1B).

This charter appears to have the WG completing LDUP engineering,
albeit producing a complete protocol technical specification.

>nor could I find any statement of what work is considered
>beyond the scope of the WG.
>
>CWA> If you have suggestions for how to phrase what work is
>     out of scope for LDUP in a sentence or two, I'm certainly
>     open to considering its inclusion. Otherwise, without a
>     "second" from a few other WG members, I will have to treat
>     this comment as an isolated one and one that doesn't
>     represent consensus.

Well, for starters:

  The following activities are beyond the scope of this WG:
        Revising the LDAP "core" technical specification [RFC3377
        and its normative references] (including its information
       and service models).

I would also like to see some statement which states that WG
intends avoid achieve a speedy conclusion by documenting areas
of contention instead of entering into protracted debate.  For
example,
        The WG intends to achieve a speedy conclusion by
        documenting areas of contention instead of entering
        into protracted debate.

Kurt