Re: [Roll] New proposed charter

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I agree with you. I think The problem is that the chair has to ask the
    > working group to say what they want to be in scope. What is done so far is
    > that our group chair is asking for new charter but still has the old scope of
    > one protocol for the group. I only know that the WG has the power to change
    > the scope if necessary when they prove that by discussion.

I am quite certain:
  a) that the IESG will not approve a WG charter that includes more than one
     routing protocol.
  b) that I don't want to be chair of a group that works on multiple
     protocols in the same WG.
  c) that should the IESG do such a thing, that I will have significant
     feedback for nomcom.

Meanwhile, I will repeat:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/odYLTGE2dkRP-SNrRSvx2-h-pU8

++ the first step would not be to assume a solution ("a new
++ routing protocol"), but rather to establish clearly what the problem is.

So, if you have a draft that explains why another protocol is necessary,
please point us to it.  It would certainly help figure out where the problem
should be discussed; it could turn out that it's a trivial extension to the
existing specification.


--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
IETF ROLL WG co-chair.    http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/