Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter - 2009-09-02

[Kari Lippert <[e-mail]>]

I agree that the two lists should be in at least loose agreement. I
also note that the Goals and Milestones section has not a part of a
Charter that I've been involved with. I assumed it was an artifact of
this standards body IETF and had been discussed. That being said, I
would propose these rewordings for the Goals and Milestones (having
used the wording from the bullets to rephrase):


Goals and Milestones:

  * October  2009   "Introduction  and  Goals"  to  the   IESG  as  an
    Informational RFC

   * October 2009 "Foundational Concepts and Transport Expectations" to
    the IESG as Proposed Standard

   * October 2010 "Abstract Type System" to the IESG as Proposed Standard

  * February 2010 "Security Model and Guidelines for  Host
Authentication" to the IESG as
    an Informational RFC

  * February  2010 "Service  Establishment"  to the  IESG as  Proposed
    Standard

  * February 2010  "Simulation Presence  and Location Establishment"
to  the IESG as
    Proposed Standard

  * June  2010  "Primitive Object  Format"  to  the  IESG as  Proposed
    Standard

  * June 2010 "Entity Identifiers" to the IESG as Proposed standard

  * June 2010 "Digital Asset and Entity Access" to the IESG as Proposed Standard



Either way on the Goals and Milestones, I say +1

Kari


On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Barry
Leiba<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Collecting the agreement on the previous iteration with the agreement
> on this one, we appear to have rough consensus here, and to be ready
> to send this version to the IESG.  I'm inclined to agree with Morgaine
> that the milestone dates are aggressive, but this is a common issue
> with new working groups, and it's something that can be tweaked during
> the remainder of the chartering process.
>
> As to the document titles in the milestones, they should also be
> tweaked to refer, where they can, to the existing  list earlier in the
> charter.  Some do now, but some vary from that (for instance,
> draft-hamrick-ogp-intro has the title "Introduction and Requirements",
> but the milestone says "Introduction  and  Goals"), and some seem to
> have no correspondence.
>
> The bullet list above that should also use the same names, where it
> can, so that everything comes together.  It would be nice if this list
> included a brief explanation of each of the documents for which
> there's a milestone.
>
> If we can clear that minor stuff up with yet one more version, then I
> suggest we send that version to the App ADs and ask that they start
> the chartering process.
>
> Some procedural notes, for those who aren't sure:
> Ultimately, it's the IESG -- all 15 Area Directors -- that decides
> whether to charter the working group.  They will put out, on the IETF
> announcement list, a copy of the charter, and call for comments n the
> IETF discussion list ([e-mail]).  They will also put out "new
> work" notices, calling for comments from other standards development
> organizations (SDOs), such as OASIS and W3C.  That's usually a pro
> forma thing, but sometimes other SDOs have useful comments, or can
> point to overlapping work elsewhere.
>
> When the input has been put in, they'll discuss it on an IESG telechat
> and come to a decision.  Depending upon the telechat schedule and how
> busy they are, a working group could be chartered in something like
> six to ten weeks.
>
> Barry (OGPX BOF chair)
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>