RE: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter
"Robert Snively" <rsnively@Brocade.COM> Fri, 23 January 2004 19:57 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18677 for <mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:57:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7QE-0006cK-Pe for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:56:54 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i0NJusqT025437 for mpowr-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:56:54 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7QE-0006cA-Hu for mpowr-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:56:54 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18654 for <mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:56:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7QB-0001Qm-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:56:51 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7PI-0001Nk-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:55:57 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7OO-0001Kh-00 for mpowr-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:55:00 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7OQ-0006Um-Ml; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:55:02 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Ak7OE-0006TN-CK for mpowr@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:54:50 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA18518 for <mpowr@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:54:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7OB-0001Ia-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:54:47 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7NE-0001Gt-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:53:49 -0500
Received: from f070.brocade.com ([66.243.153.70] helo=blasphemy.brocade.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Ak7MR-0001FU-00 for mpowr@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:52:59 -0500
Received: from hq-ex-3.corp.brocade.com (hq-ex-3 [192.168.38.35]) by blasphemy.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2A214374; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:52:28 -0800 (PST)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:52:27 -0800
Message-ID: <BA03B41AFFEA154B80DEB5BC9E4B65D005917A32@hq-ex-3.corp.brocade.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter
Thread-Index: AcPh4nMPgWK3mNcISNy9qTSNRL+lpQABF1bw
From: Robert Snively <rsnively@Brocade.COM>
To: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>, mpowr@ietf.org
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: mpowr-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: mpowr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr>, <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Management Positions -- Oversight, Work and Results <mpowr.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mpowr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr>, <mailto:mpowr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Your first question is > There is also still an open question regarding whether there > is community support to form a WG in this area at all, but we > thought that a strawman charter might help us to focus our > mailing list discussions. My first impression is that a good way to do this would be to create a single working group addressing the issues of empowerment, standards track, scalability, and perhaps other issues. Within that working group, this would be one of the projects, so this would be a "project proposal" rather than a WG proposal. That way, these closely related subjects could be examined in a synergistic manner and appropriate RFC's created and/or modified as needed. I am sorry that I will not be able to join you folks in Seoul to consider these questions. > (3) If the community believes that it is necessary > and advisable, publish BCPs that update RFC 2418 > and/or RFC 2026 (section 6) to clarify or modify > our roles and responsibilities. [Question: Should > the WG be chartered for this task up-front, or > should the WG be re-chartered if it decides that > this step is necessary?] The WG should be chartered for this up-front. > > [Question: Should we omit items 3 and 4 from this charter and > indicate that the group should re-charter if these are > considered necessary? Or include them now?] You have wisely phrased it so that if no change is needed, none need be done. As a result, items 3 and 4 definitely belong, since much of the work necessary to do them (if necessary) is already included within the charter of the WG. > > [Question: Should we add wording to limit the scope of the > changes that this WG is chartered to consider? For instance, > should we explicitly state that this WG is not expected to > make changes to the document track or the document approval > process?] By its nature, changes in the empowerment of the WGs will make some kind of changes in the document track and the document approval process, so such limitations would not be desirable. > > [Question: Should we including any wording about how this > WG relates to the ICAR and NEWTRK efforts?] > There should be explicit liaison activities among these different activities, since a good idea in one may solve a problem in another. It is very important that the activities divide the work intelligently, since they are so closely related. In fact, I would have proposed all three of these activities as separate but closely related projects within a single working group. I would suggest that you explicitly reference the draft "draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-xx" and the related draft "draft-ietf-problem-process-xx" as source documents for this work. That way we will not miss any of the primary issues, nor will we have to repeat some of the work in determining the hoped for results of the empowerment of the WG. _______________________________________________ mpowr mailing list mpowr@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr
- [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Margaret Wasserman
- RE: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Robert Snively
- Re: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter James Kempf
- RE: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Margaret Wasserman
- RE: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Robert Snively
- Re: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [mpowr] Rough Strawman of MPOWR Charter Pekka Savola