IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [homegate] A new proposed charter (and name) for HOMEGATE

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com> Thu, 09 September 2010 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@shinkuro.com>
X-Original-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homegate@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 647523A689C for <homegate@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.945
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.654, 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 UALTEv883L5G for <homegate@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.yitter.info (mail.yitter.info [208.86.224.201]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C4C23A684D for <homegate@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 07:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crankycanuck.ca (69-196-144-230.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.144.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B10C71ECB41D for <homegate@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:08:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:08:24 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@shinkuro.com>
To: homegate@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20100909140823.GD7036@shinkuro.com>
References: <CC1E998F-8828-4E29-9DBF-CFF98CF029E0@nominet.org.uk> <4C87330E.2090605@sidn.nl> <p06240814c8ad47230327@[10.20.30.158]> <4C88C0D3.2060302@broadcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C88C0D3.2060302@broadcom.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [homegate] A new proposed charter (and name) for HOMEGATE
X-BeenThere: homegate@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Broadband Home Gateway Discussion <homegate.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/homegate>
List-Post: <mailto:homegate@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate>, <mailto:homegate-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 14:07:59 -0000

On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 04:11:15AM -0700, Stephen [kiwin] PALM wrote:
> We should clearly state that only small offices that have very similar characteristics
> as home networks will be implicitly addressed. ie, there cannot be scope creep.

I don't find that argument compelling.  Implicit in the scope outlined
by a charter is the assumption that expanding the scope requires
rechartering.  Otherwise, every charter would have to list the
(numerically unlimited) things that they won't address.  I know that
some people feel that chartering discussions currently take an
infinitely long time, but this would be a way to ensure that :)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email