IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Confusion about ISMS rechartering

Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Wed, 07 September 2005 17:19 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ED3a4-00061u-4K; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:19:28 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ED3a1-00061h-NE; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:19:25 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03645; Wed, 7 Sep 2005 13:19:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ED3dD-0004Kl-1y; Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:22:45 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.2] (adsl-67-112-203-12.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [67.112.203.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j87HJdZw023650 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Sep 2005 10:19:40 -0700
Message-ID: <431F20FD.1010107@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 10:18:53 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
References: <431DD3BD.9090108@cisco.com> <431DD94C.8070907@dcrocker.net> <tslfysi2ge8.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <431DF69D.5090108@dcrocker.net> <tslpsrlc34u.fsf_-_@cz.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tslpsrlc34u.fsf_-_@cz.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird: Found to be clean
X-Songbird-From: dhc2@dcrocker.net
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Confusion about ISMS rechartering
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org


> In this instance, the whole point of the charter was to reach a
> direction within the working group that has broad architectural impact
> and then to review that decision with the community.  So, I think
> Eliot and Steve's concerns are directly tied to the chartering event.

Sam, thanks for pursuing this.  I had misunderstood the timeline, and thought 
that Eliot was raising a post-chartering issue.

As we seem to agree, such issues do arise in working groups, so the question of 
seeking broad review of major decisions DURING the wg process is a valid issue, 
albeit apparently not this time.

My own, very strong bias on situations like the current one, certainly is to 
make a charter as precise and complete as possible.  The more a charter can 
state basic assumptions and constraints, the better, from what I have seen. 
Including conceptual and architectural impacts (or issues) can only be helpful.

-- 
 
   d/

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email