RE: WG Charter Proposal v2

Thanks for the clarification.   Comments in line.

At 08:41 AM 4/1/2003, Chris Apple wrote:
>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.

Require?


>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.

Yes, the WG needs to discuss/decide this.

My opinion:  For each "work in progress" the WG believes it needs to
have completed for it to complete, it should state what that it will,
if necessary, undertake the dependent work.  Note here, I do not suggest
a general statement, but a set of per I-D specific statements.  Something
like:
        The LDUP work requires development of a suitable XXXX feature.
        Currently the WG intends to reference draft-joe-xxxx being developed
        on an individual basis.  The WG may, if it becomes necessary,
        undertake the development of the XXXX feature.  If and when that
        becomes necessary, the WG will negotiate appropriate milestones
        with its AD.