Re: [Re: [Ieprep] ieprep-requirements-01 - reqs 6-10 - discussion request]

[RJ Atkinson <[e-mail]>]

On Tuesday, Nov 5, 2002, at 14:13 America/Montreal, Daniel Sullivan 
wrote:
> I think this group is working on stuff for the future. If we didn't 
> need to
> make changes, we could shut down the IETF.  How boring that would be! 
> :-))

I remain a little befuddled about the charter language, despite a couple
of attempts by Scott to clarify.  No doubt Scott will clarify the below
if I err greatly.

However, *this particular group* is supposed to focus on how one could 
deploy
IEprep services *using existing mechanisms*.  The group is specifically 
NOT
supposed to work on protocol design or changes to IETF protocol specs.
So the focus of this group is how can we do IEprep stuff *today* (not
in some indefinite future) using *existing* mechanisms.

So work on changing things is legitimate for the IETF, but not 
particularly
the focus of this particular working group.  As an example, this group
is offering input to SIP WG.  SIP WG can then choose whether or not to
make any changes and also which changes it wants to make.

So I'd say that if there are particular changes one wants to make to 
IETF
protocols, then one should take those up in the *normal* IETF manner:
	- show up at the applicable other WG
	- explain what one wants and why one wants it
	- write an Internet-Draft outlining one's proposal
	- try to persuade that WG community to make those changes
	- work with the normal process of the IETF

No doubt Scott will correct any confusion in the above.

Ran
[e-mail]

_______________________________________________
Ieprep mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep