Re: [Ieprep] proposed charter

["James M. Polk" <[e-mail]>]

comments in-line

At 01:21 AM 9/26/2006 -0400, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

>Two people sent me private email pointing to the email message with
>the proposed charter.
>
>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ieprep/current/msg02421.html
>
>Thanks.
>
>Seems mostly reasonable to me.  One paragraph seems open ended and may
>be a source of trouble for other reasons.
>
>   If there is an existing group that can extend a protocol or
>   mechanism, IEPREP will generate only a requirements document for
>   those groups to evaluate. If there is not an existing group that can
>   extend a protocol or mechanism, IEPREP will prepare requirements and
>   discuss the extension of that protocol/mechanism or
>   protocols/mechanisms within IEPREP.
>
>This is a promise to liason with anybody and everbody that intends to
>work in this area and to step back and let that other group do the
>protocol work.

Correct, and this is what IEPREP has been limited to since its creation 
(i.e. it has only been able to do requirements, and no solutions)

>The IESG favors (with good reason) WG charters that
>propose to do work

ah, but IEPREP isn't allowed to *do* anything, only write requirements for 
other WGs to *do* something, and only *if* that WG decides to *do* anything 
with the requirement(s), which may get brushed asside as not interesting, 
or without significant WG interest (from that other WG).

RFC4412 took 6 years to get done due to lack of interest in another WG, yet 
the IEPREP WG could have done the work in 2.

>rather than WG charters that propose to sit back
>and watch the ITU do work in that area.

Well... the intention is to have IEPREP actually be able to extend 
protocols that don't currently have WGs chartered for said protocols, and 
it there are WGs for said protocols - to give those WGs merely the 
requirements.  This paragraph's intent is to state that IEPREP doesn't want 
to step on anyone's toes if a current WG charter elsewhere covers a desired 
piece of protocol work, and actually do the work if it isn't chartered 
anywhere else.

ITU-T is mentioned in a cooperative sense, but IEPREP isn't expecting to 
assign ITU-T work.

>A good example (and closely
>related to this sort of work) where the result coming from the ITU was
>not at all useful is the ITU QoS requirements work in the mid to late
>1990s.  This may be looking too much like more of the same.

<snip>

>Any effort which requires the whole world to agree before getting
>started will never get started.
>
>Curtis
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ieprep mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ieprep

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