Re: Re-chartering for extension work

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

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/