Re: Strawman OPES Charter

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Markus Hofmann wrote:

> Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> > May I ask why not? Isn't it a "good practice" to shepherd produced
> > standards? If the item has no deliverable, would it really increase WG
> > load?
>
> If it has no deliverables, why should it be on the charter?

So that folks external to the WG (e.g., OCP implementers) know that
they have come to the right place when searching for help/advice. Some
would assume that, but some might not. And so that we can offer that
advice/help on the mailing list, without being told that it is out of
our charter scope.

> > We do not intend to ignore any OCP/HTTP questions/concerns
> > coming at us from early adopters, are we?
>
> No, they can be brought in in the context of the work items we
> already have.

But we will not have any work items in OCP/HTTP context.

It is not a big issue for me, especially since IETF does not usually
do protocol maintenance (unfortunately), but I think it would be a
good idea to add the blob, even without any specific deliverables. The
deliverable, in this case, is a service to the community, to the
protocol implementors and such.

Thanks,

Alex.