[IPsec] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-ipsecme-11-01: (with COMMENT)

[Tero Kivinen <[e-mail]>]

Spencer Dawkins writes:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I don't object to this proposed charter going for internal review, but do have
> one question.
> 
> When looking at some of the work items, I see
> 
> "A possible starting point is draft-yeung-g-ikev2" (nit, missing closing period)
> 
> "draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp and draft-mglt-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension
> are expected to be good starting points for ESP compression."
> 
> "draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-compression and raft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-compact
> are good starting point for IKEv2 compression." (nit, should be "starting
> points")
> 
> "draft-boucadair-ipsecme-ipv6-ipv4-codes could be used as a starting point for
> this item."
> 
> If you're using different language to convey a nuance, that would be fine (I'm
> missing it, but I miss things).

It is supposed to be same. I.e., we already have some draft that is
expected to be the draft we are going to consider as WG work draft in
the future.

The reason why the text is different for each of those is because
different people wrote the texts. I.e., before we considered items to
be added to charter, we wanted the people interested in item provide
good enough charter item so we can understand what we are adding, and
this means different people used different words to provide same
meaning. .

> If you're saying the same thing in all four cases, I'd suggest using the same
> phrasing in each case. so working group chairs and participants aren't trying
> to figure out whether "possible starting point" and "could be used as a
> starting point" are the same as "expected to be good starting points" and "are
> good starting points".

That is ok for me. I also think that we as wg chairs and members
already understand that, so it is not really necessarely, but if it
makes it easier for someone else I have no objections changing the
text (and I do not really care which version is used). 

> I think I see "A possible starting point is" in most charters that point to
> individual drafts, which lets the working group decide whether to adopt that
> proposal or work on a different approach, but do the right thing, of course.

That is fine for me. 
-- 
[e-mail]