Re: Submission of charter for POISON
Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au> Wed, 01 May 1996 18:18 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24277; 1 May 96 14:18 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24273; 1 May 96 14:18 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10849; 1 May 96 14:17 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24263; 1 May 96 14:17 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa24259; 1 May 96 14:17 EDT
Received: from munnari.OZ.AU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10844; 1 May 96 14:17 EDT
Received: from mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU by munnari.OZ.AU with SMTP (5.83--+1.3.1+0.56) id SA22182; Thu, 2 May 1996 04:17:04 +1000 (from kre@munnari.OZ.AU)
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <klensin@mail1.reston.mci.net>, "Erik Huizer (SURFnet ExpertiseCentrum bv)" <Erik.Huizer@sec.nl>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, IESG <iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>, poised@tis.com
Subject: Re: Submission of charter for POISON
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 May 1996 10:30:53 MST." <v03006608adad4488bf7f@[205.214.160.91]>
Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 04:17:02 +1000
Message-Id: <1083.830974622@munnari.OZ.AU>
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.oz.au>
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 10:30:53 -0700 From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Message-ID: <v03006608adad4488bf7f@[205.214.160.91]> Until a firm set of hard deliverables -- for which the working group is directly responsible -- become clear, I suggest that the chartering be deferred. Actually, there is one very clear thing to do. Getting the current documents out was accomplished by deferring the decision on just what to do with the BCP label in particular, and document types in general, till poised'96. If it seems likely that poised'96 will not be chartered to consider these issues, then they can't really be considered closed for poised'95, and we'll have to go back and figure out the answers now. However, I would remove the proposed revision of the nomcom docs from the charter - reconsidering that now makes no sense at all. It it weren't complete, we shouldn't be publishing it now, we should finish it. No particular deadline before about next November makes sense. Publishing a doc on this now, with the intent of even considering changing it before its even used would be insane. Note - this doesn't mean I think we should defer it, just the contrary, I think its fine now, and should certainly be left alone until (at least) it is tried by the next nomcom. After that we can see if there are reported problems serious enough to need a quick revision, or whether it can last one or more cycles after that. kre ps: poised doesn't use "lots of meeting time", no more than any other working group. It may not produce protocol specifications, but it certainly isn't the only WG not to do that.
- Re: Submission of charter for POISON Dave Crocker
- Re: Submission of charter for POISON Robert Elz