Re: Re-chartering for extension work

["Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 12, 2019, at 08:38, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> """
> Additionally, the Working Group will deliver [ adopted extensions ]. 
> The Working Group may consider other extension work, but adopting 
> further extensions requires updating this charter.
> """

The way I read this is that this working group is saying that we believe this set of extensions is important.  And we are proposing a charter to the IETF as a whole that recognizes that.  I expect IETF last call to ratify that view, but I might be surprised and learn something.

That's good, because it means that the scope of the work we undertake is not entirely in our control.  We don't get to work on "any extension".  At least not just yet.  If we were having this same conversation after there was a suite of QUIC RFCs, I might suggest that this be more loose.  For instance, the TLS working group is able to adopt extensions at their sole discretion.  But we can leave that discussion for later.  Right now, we still haven't shipped the core protocol.  Until we do, it's entirely appropriate to have a tightly constrained set of topics to work on.  And to require IETF review for any changes to that scope.

I know that the chairs are highly focused on getting that core protocol done and won't allow us to get distracted from that task, but even this change adds some risk.  We need to remember that until we are done with a version 1, that risk remains.  I think that the risk is manageable with this expansion to the scope, but it will require some discipline.

FWIW, I don't think we need to recharter to do the version negotiation thing on the basis that providing for a protocol's eventual replacement is just part of defining a good protocol, but I'm happy including it in this set for the sake of simplicity.