RE: WG Charter Proposal v2

From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 2:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 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?

CWA> This particular topic could prove to be a rat hole while its still
     all based on the theory of dissecting documents. Lets see where future
     discussion leads that is about the technical merits of moving specific
     features out of an existing LDUP document. My point about minimizing
     risk to completing our work program in short order should be noted.

CWA> Requiring that documents primarily focusing on features extracted
     from an existing LDUP document is a strategy that I will pursue
     if it actually comes to that. While there would be nothing I could
     do to stop an individual from publishing such a document outside
     of the LDUP portion of the I-D namespace, I would hope that folks
     will keep in mind what's in the best interest of the LDUP WG according
     to the WG Co-Chairs. Creating new dependencies on new documents
     external to the WG will create more risk than is called for.

CWA> I wanted to respond because you seemed to be unclear about what I
     could have meant by the word "require" in this context. This particular
     topic doesn't need to be resolved to revise our charter because it
     has not been suggested as a topic for inclusion. Lets defer any further
     discussion on this particular topic until we are actually coping with
     the reality of dissecting specific features from specific documents.
     We cannot proceed with that until we are able to move on to revising
     the documents themselves per the charter revision proposal.

>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.


CWA> Sounds like a reasonable way to identify external dependencies with
     one modification - I don't think it's appropriate to reference a
     specific I-D file name in a WG charter - but some other way of
     referring to it (a paraphrasing of the document title perhaps).

     Document editors should post their planned external references to works
     in progress to the mailing list so we can have the complete set known
     at this time. These postings should be made before the April 7th end
date
     of the comment window on the charter revision proposal.

Chris Apple - Principal Architect

DSI Consulting, Inc.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dsi-consulting.com