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

[Infinity Linden <[e-mail]>]

hey kari. looks like your changes are just fixing some oversights we
made earlier, so i have no problems with any of them.

fwiw. some of us in stockhom discussed the list and were thinking of
putting a "trust model" section in foundations document, but that
didn't get captured on the list, so i'm happy someone was awake enough
to add a reference to it back in.

as for the digital asset and entity asset access being in the same
document. i have a gut feeling that both of these will grow to be
relatively large documents, and will get worked on separately. so +1
for pointing out that we have to work on both of them, but i think
ultimately we'll want them in separate documents.

-cheers
-meadhbh/infinity

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:49 AM, Kari Lippert<[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>