RE: WG Charter Proposal v2

Comments embedded below.

Chris.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 2:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 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.

CWA> The WG achieved consensus on Proposal 1. This proposal
     doesn't state that the WG couldn't reach consensus
     on LDUP, it acknowledges that there are certain issues on
     which consensus cannot be established at this time. That
     is different than stating that we cannot establish any
     consensus at all - which is what your words imply above.

     Proposal 1 was one of two proposals for how to conclude
     LDUP's work given that there are known to be certain issues
     around which consensus cannot be established at this time.
     Proposal 1 also was based on the assumption (which was
     validated by the WG achieving consensus on it) that there
     is sufficient value to justify a recommendation to the ADs
     for consideration for publication as largely experimental
     and informational documents in the work on which we have
     achieved consensus. LCUP being a notable exception as
     indicated in Proposal 1.

     Item 1B of that proposal doesn't state that there should
     be a separate document identifying outstanding issues. It
     also doesn't preclude that. The text of 1B implies that
     outstanding issues should be identified within existing
     documents. Item 1B also doesn't require that course of
     action. I left it intentionally fuzzy because I didn't
     want to restrict the WG from handling it the way it saw
     fit while doing the work. As long as the intent and work
     required to address this is reflected somewhere in the
     WG description (I believe they are), we don't need to
     decide now if it should be handled within existing  
     documents or in a separate document.

>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).


CWA> This is an old discussion based on a perusal of the mailing
     list archive. However, since views may be different now than
     in the past. I think its worth waiting for others to weigh
     in on the issue. If a substantial portion of other WG members
     state their agreement on the mailing list that the suggested
     text be included, John and I can consider whether consensus
     exists on adding it.

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.


CWA> Same song as above. We need to see agreement posted to
     the mailing list that it be added. Then John and I will
     consider consensus on this issue.



Kurt