Re: [ldapext] draft charter comment

Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com> Fri, 27 October 2017 08:13 UTC

Return-Path: <michael@stroeder.com>
X-Original-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8BB13F606 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A97uQPUCVXHg for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv1.stroeder.com (srv1.stroeder.com [213.240.180.113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74F3D13F602 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.hv.local (mail.stroeder.local [10.1.1.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.stroeder.local", Issuer "stroeder.com Server CA no. 2009-07" (not verified)) by srv1.stroeder.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5AE3598; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:13:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from nb2.stroeder.local (nb2.stroeder.local [10.1.1.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail1.hv.local (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 964D997; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:13:37 +0200 (CEST)
To: William Brown <wibrown@redhat.com>, ldapext@ietf.org
References: <1509061159.20220.91.camel@redhat.com> <02ca8531-454c-4034-1402-346a299c331c@highlandsun.com> <1509063411.20220.101.camel@redhat.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_Str=c3=b6der?= <michael@stroeder.com>
Openpgp: id=43C8730E84A20E560722806C07DC7AE36A8BC938
Message-ID: <c4eabb06-fa28-ea50-969f-0dddf355cba2@stroeder.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:13:37 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.49.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1509063411.20220.101.camel@redhat.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms060202030806040800020101"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/-EWTgSNVvMb9SGq5cNkpv4M6di4>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] draft charter comment
X-BeenThere: ldapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <ldapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ldapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:ldapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 08:13:44 -0000

William Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 01:07 +0100, Howard Chu wrote:
>> William Brown wrote:
>>> Second, I think we need a section in there about future work? We 
>>> seem to list only "lets clean things" as a group, but shouldn't
>>> we say " our charter is to clean up the draft standards and then
>>> continue working on curation of new standards"?>>
>> I think nobody at the time was going to be so ambitious as to work
>> on new standards. ;)>
> Better have it and not need it, than need it and not have it? 

Note that we have to prove to the area director that we are able to form
a WG which is capable of getting real work done. And AFAIK the WGs are
not meant to exist forever. We can recharter later to add whatever we
want to do. But IMO we should do this *after* getting current work done.

Also note you're free to post individual I-Ds at any time and the WG can
decide at any time whether those get WG work items or not.

To me it seems this whole IETF process is pretty flexible. Therefore we
don't have to consider the future now.

So for now let's stick to most important work items and see whether we
manage to get those done.

Ciao, Michael.