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.