Re: [PEPPERMINT] DRINKS PROPOSED Charter ..comments please.

[David Schwartz <[e-mail]>]

There has been much talk here about "going off the reservation" and  
what the IESG will or won't approve.

I think it would be helpful if one (or both) of the ADs would please  
chime in here as to why there is a need to bound the solution space  
when there are some valid arguments being presented on this list as to  
why this is not a good idea.

While no one wants to boil the ocean it may be a waste of time if all  
we want to do is catch a small tuna.

I think the discussion on this topic proves 2 things:

1 the great interest in the topic
2 the different outlooks on the problem

While I have nothing intrinsic against the proposed text one cannot  
deny its limiting and in light of some of the resistance on the list -  
maybe counterproductive at this point.

ADs?



On Apr 24, 2008, at 7:31 PM, Hadriel Kaplan <[e-mail]>  
wrote:

>
> I agree that it is constraining the solution to some degree, but I  
> think what Richard has said is we're going to need to do that a bit  
> to get this past the IESG.  My guess is they're just worried we  
> might try to take on too much or overstep the IETF's comfort zone.
>
> The terms described so far though are fairly generic, and I think  
> one can claim a lot of things would fall under those terms.
>
> So to use the earlier analogy they do say "we're building a car",  
> but that car could be a minivan or pickup - but it's not going to be  
> a plane or boat.  If a mechanism we choose happens to be Chitty- 
> Chitty Bang-Bang, that's ok and I'm not even sure we'd have to  
> revisit the charter to accept that type of solution; but the current  
> charter's just saying it's not in our scope to try to build that  
> type of vehicle at the outset.
>
> If we find that this scope is too constrictive, then we can always  
> revisit and change the charter.  I don't think there will be too  
> much disagreement to changing that if the SSP community needs  
> something more.  And if there is disagreement to that, well... it's  
> fairly pointless to create a mechanism that won't be used. (not that  
> the IETF hasn't done that a hundred times :)
>
> -hadriel
> _______________________________________________
> PEPPERMINT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint
_______________________________________________
PEPPERMINT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/peppermint