RE: Re-chartering for extension work

["Roni Even (A)" <[e-mail]>]

HI Mark,
I looked at your response to Jana, I do not have a better text suggestion but I think that adding specific extensions can be discussed by asking the WG to create a new milestone. Yet I understand that the charter should be clear about what is in scope for the WG. I think that maybe the charter should also say that the WG can direct proposal for new work to another WG (sort of dispatch for QUIC).

One other thing, I think that when asking for adoption of a document you are asking to create a milestone and adopt the document as the initial document to address the milestone. 
Sorry for sounding like someone whose focus is on the process and not the content.

Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 9:00 AM
> To: Roni Even (A)
> Cc: IETF QUIC WG; Lars Eggert
> Subject: Re: Re-chartering for extension work
> 
> Hi Roni,
> 
> See my response to Jana regarding naming of extensions.
> 
> Regarding milestones - yes, we'll do that when the rest of the changes go
> through. Thanks for the reminder.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> > On 12 Dec 2019, at 5:49 pm, Roni Even (A) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> > I am not sure why you need to name extensions in the charter. I think that
> the extension work in the charter should be general and the discussion about
> specific ones would be about creating a new milestone.
> >
> > BTW: maybe it will be good to update the milestones
> >
> > Roni Even
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: QUIC [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mark
> >> Nottingham
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 11:38 PM
> >> To: IETF QUIC WG
> >> Cc: Lars Eggert
> >> Subject: Re-chartering for extension work
> >>
> >> We've just put out Calls for Adoption for extensions to QUICv1, as we
> >> believe that the group has some capacity to discuss them as it
> >> finishes work on the core protocol.
> >>
> >> However, our charter [1] precludes work on at least some extensions.
> >> The specific text in question is:
> >>
> >> """
> >> Extensions that will support partial reliability, and negotiation and
> >> use of Forward Error Correction schemes, are out of scope in this
> >> version of the working group charter.
> >> """
> >>
> >> *If* we do decide we'd like to adopt, we'll need to update it to
> >> something
> >> like:
> >>
> >> """
> >> Additionally, the Working Group will deliver [ adopted extensions ].
> >> The Working Group may consider other extension work, but adopting
> >> further extensions requires updating this charter.
> >> """
> >>
> >> Please take a look and discuss any concerns; we'll be asking our ADs
> >> for such a modification (with appropriate changes to the list of
> >> extensions adopted) once our Calls for Adoption complete.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> 1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/about/
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
> >
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/