Re: [lamps] Warren Kumari's Block on charter-ietf-lamps-02-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On May 23, 2018 at 3:32:21 PM, Warren Kumari ([e-mail]) wrote:

Hi!

​So, here you say: "Add it up and it can take days on the web." and above
that you say: "For typical systems I think the likely lifetime will be
between 1 day and 1 week.  [...] , but I don’t think anything beyond 2
weeks would ever count as short."

"1 week" minus "days" is still greater than zero, and so it still *seems*
to me that removing revocation is a bad idea -- but, my role is (or should
be!) to make sure that this charter doesn't conflict with other work (esp.
ops work), that the charter "describes the specific problem or deliverables
(a guideline, standards specification, etc.) it has been formed to address.
WG charters state the scope of work for group, and lay out goals and
milestones that show how this work will be completed." It is (IMO) the
sponsoring ADs, the WGs and IETFs decision as to if the ideas themselves
are acceptable.
I'm not (yet!) so arrogant that I'm sure I know the right answer to
everything, so I'd like to discuss this with EKR on the call tomorrow
<http://airmail.calendar/2018-05-24 12:00:00 EDT>, and will clear my block
once I've been assured process is being followed
/ this has been considered.

I agree with Warren’s assessment.

However, I also think that a charter may give undue validation to items
that would benefit from at least a little more description or
consideration.  IOW, adding (to the charter) a longer description, and
listing which things should be satisfied, or at least considered, seems
like a good idea to me.

Alvaro.