RE: Re-chartering for extension work

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

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/