[charter-tool] include BOFs?

"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Tue, 21 December 2010 05:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: charter-tool@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: charter-tool@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D8B43A69BB for <charter-tool@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:44:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.514
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.514 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4QOv81DgpAbU for <charter-tool@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:44:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B363A69A9 for <charter-tool@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Dec 2010 21:44:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.20]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id lhcz1f0020SCNGk5Dhmb8q; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:46:35 +0000
Received: from 23FX1C1 ([67.189.235.106]) by omta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id lhmU1f0062JQnJT3VhmUXb; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:46:31 +0000
From: David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: charter-tool@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:46:01 -0500
Message-ID: <B5CB4F893F53452599F0A58FF3405C5A@23FX1C1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: Acugz5fTSOQUjRMfTTOGuzu4IspwXAAAH+VAAACL+yA=
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5994
Subject: [charter-tool] include BOFs?
X-BeenThere: charter-tool@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <charter-tool.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/charter-tool>, <mailto:charter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/charter-tool>
List-Post: <mailto:charter-tool@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:charter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/charter-tool>, <mailto:charter-tool-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 05:44:40 -0000

Hi,

I have read draft-ietf-genarea-charter-tool-02 and have some
suggestions.

1) Would it make sense to allow an AD to start a record at the
(optional) BOF stage? The IESG and IAB review starts at the BOF stage.
That might presumably be before the first proposed charter.

2) often the stages include an informal IESG meeting, and requested
IAB review.

3) It might be good if the AD cmments can be identified as discuss or
comment level. We do quite a lot of comment-level wordsmithing; it
would be good if ADs could clearly identify what  they consider to be
the critically important issues. I am not sure if the DISCUSS criteria
apply, or whether a different set of criteria would need to be
applied.

4) for 2.8, it might be good to have milestone baselines (resettable
by the AD) versus current projections (resettable by the chairs with
AD approval), so we can easily see how much the milestones have
slipped.

5) in 2.2, you might want to be able to change the name of a WG (e.g.,
from homegate to homenet). One way to handle this would be to have a
pointer to a second record that continues discussion under a new name
(and the new record should have a pointer to the previous record). 

6) the pointer to a mailing list should be able to be supplemented
when a new (e.g. an ietf list) supercedes an earlier list for
discussion. (or the official mailing list should be able to soemhow
import the old list by value rather than by reference).

7) in 2.10, it ight be useful to ensure that all earlier charters
reflect the info at the time of the earlier charter, such as the
area/AD, and the proposed WG name and acronym.

8) a keyword search might be useful for locating earlier BOFs and/or
concluded WGs. 

9) a record that holds a URL to each concluded WG might be useful
(even if all the record data is not provided by the database)

10) There should be a point, such as at external review, when new-work
is notified of a proposed WG. This may need a manual push-button to
trigger this at the appropriate time.

David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
ietfdbh@comcast.net (preferred for ietf)
dbharrington@huaweisymantec.com
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)