Re: [Danish] Proposed WG Charter

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> I see this as a sticking point.
    >> Those who like DNSSEC will dislike working around it.
    >> Those who think DNSSEC will never sail will use this to sink it.

    > If the charter of this WG is to sink DNSSEC, that needs to be stated
    > explicitly in the charter, and then say why this work should not be in other
    > PKI-based WGs.

you said it better than I.

    >> > I think the charter should go some way to clarifying the intended use
    >> > cases.
    >>
    >> I think that's actually more than a charter should say.

    > I could not disagree more strongly.

I suspect that we are in agreement.
It has to deal with the use cases, but I don't think it should go "some way".
There is a reason we write use case documents.

    >> The charter needs to specific enough to tell people if they are interested
    >> in
    >> the problem, and motivate them enough to read a use case document.

    > Charters are not documents to attract participants, they are descriptions of
    > intended work. Given that this thread has brought out some significant
    > disagreements on the use cases, the listing of use cases is all that much
    > more imperative.

Let me invert your point in order to also violently agree with it.
I didn't say that it was about attracting participants, but when people get
to it, it must be clear enough to tell them if they are in the right place.

So, a charter should have enough details so that someone can tell:
  a) if the WG is *not* working on some problem that they have.
     ("move along, nothing to see here".  That is, to "distract"
       participants. Although we don't useally consider "distract" to be
       opposite of attract)
     That's why we saying what's out of scope is so important.

  b) what problems the WG is working on.

Note that use cases are not the same as problems. Clearly related.

The RATS WG charter does not go into use cases at all.
We (I) wrote/collected a use case document (never to be published) very early in the
process so that the WG could focus better.   Parts of it, moved into the architecture.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [