Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering..

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

On 9/3/14 12:50 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Brian Haberman
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Just for clarification...
>>
>> On 9/3/14 12:22 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am also concerned on the time DMM is taking on dressing up the
>>> charter text. I remind you on what Jari Arkko who is founding AD for
>>> DMM said in Toronto admin plenary:
>>> WGs should have  solution work from day 1.
>>
>> Not "should", but rather "could".  Not all WGs need to have
>> requirements, frameworks, architecture, etc. That is why this type of
>> discussion during charter development is important.
> 
> Here is the quote:
> WGs should have solution work from day 1
> 
> from page 22 of Jari's slides at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-iesg-opsplenary-7.pdf

Yes, that is what the slide says.  The IESG discussed the contents of
this presentation and the overwhelming consensus (and what was
verbalized in the plenary) is that WGs should not be formed where the
*only* output is architecture, frameworks, and/or requirements
documents.  The charter should have protocol/solution work on the
charter from day one.  It does not mean that non-solution documents
should be skipped if they are needed or provide useful background.

The charter text that Jouni sent to the mailing has four (4) work items.
 By my read, three (3) of them are solutions to identified problem
areas.  So, I believe the charter is following the spirit of Jari's
plenary slides.

Your only complaint is about the first work item.  I have seen people
asking about clarifications on that work item, but you are the only one
who wants it removed.  I believe others are in favor of providing a
document of the high-level models being targeted for the solutions work.

At this point, the WG chairs need to determine if there is consensus for
the latest charter text.

Regards,
Brian