RE: WG Charter Proposal v2

I did make a statement similar to that - it wasn't specifically directed
at individual contributions - it was directed at this working group being
dependent on deliverables from anywhere outside of the working group to
complete its work. Consider the machinations we had to go through to decide
how to handle LDAPEXT's failure to produce an ACM standard and the
motivation
for this comment becomes clear. A similar failure either on the part of
another
working group or an individual to produce a document that can be published
as
an RFC represents a similar risk that I as co-chair will seek to avoid if
possible.

That comment was also not as strong or as broad as you are recalling. I made
the comment in response to your suggestion of dissecting certain aspects of
LDUP specs out into separate documents. Those types of dissections were what
I was referring to when I made this comment. If any such dissections occur,
I
will require that any such newly created documents become working group
documents.
As these new documents won't represent new work (we merely chose to create a
separate I-D to work on the concept we already were pursuing), a charter
revision
is not required all that is required is that the I-Ds be published under the
LDUP
portion of the I-D namespace. This is simply to help minimize the risks
associated
with having such documents worked on outside of the working group. We
already have
enough risk to manage. I will not as a co-chair allow additional risk of
this type
to be added.

With regard to *existing* individual contributions that LDUP documents may
need
to reference, the working group needs to discuss/decide if it wants to add
those
items to its work program.

I note that there are more risks associated with documents who's editors are
not accountable to the WG than documents who's editors are accountable to
the
working group.

However, I do not believe it to be appropriate for any co-chair to require
that an existing individual I-D become a WG document unless the WG agrees
that it should take on the deliverable. I didn't make a statement requiring
this to happen. I have strongly argued that it should in the past.

I do believe it is appropriate and necessary for me as a co-chair to manage
risk associated with existing WG deliverables in the manner that I described
above.

Chris Apple - Principal Architect

DSI Consulting, Inc.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dsi-consulting.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: WG Charter Proposal v2


Chris, at IETF#56, you made some comments regarding problems this group had
in
the past with referencing individual I-D and how you, as chair, would
require
that all of the individual I-Ds which this WG depended upon would be brought
into the WG and treated as WG I-Ds.  Can you clarify what your intended to
say
at IETF#56 with regard to WG handling of these individual I-Ds?  Thanks,
Kurt