[SPICE] Re: Christopher Inacio's Yes on charter-ietf-spice-01-00

[Orie <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I think clearly defining GLUE within the charter's scope makes more sense
than other ways to resolve the issue.
If the concern is that the current text is too broad, lets narrow the scope
to focus on the specific document.

Regards,

OS


On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 9:47 AM Michael Jones <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> There were these supportive reactions in the pull request:
>
>
>
>
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-spice/charter/pull/2#pullrequestreview-4055920843
>
> Support this addition. The distinction between claims and data structures
> is real and has operational consequences: GLUE's credential linking
> semantics are structural, not semantic claims about a subject. The same
> issue arises with any binding or routing envelope that travels with
> credentials — it's data the credential ecosystem needs to process, but it's
> not a claim in the W3C/IETF sense.
>
> The one-sentence addition is the right scope: "useful for commerce and
> trade" keeps it anchored to the WG's domain without opening an unbounded
> claims registry. Supports merging.
>
>
>
>
> https://github.com/ietf-wg-spice/charter/pull/2#pullrequestreview-4055996555
>
> This will link real-world use-cases to the work we do.
>
>
>
> Orie Steele (who suggested this addition to me while he was an ART AD)
> approved the pull request.
>
>
>
> And I obviously believe this is important, or I wouldn’t have written the
> PR.
>
>
>
> GLUE is an example why this is an important update.  GLUE is a data
> structure facilitating trade and commerce and this places it squarely
> within the scope of the charter.  We may want to do other data structure
> work.
>
>
>
> In my experience, one can update the charter during IESG review – just
> like one can (and usually does) update a draft during IESG review.  Yes, if
> we need to pull it out of IESG review, we should, but I’m pretty sure we
> can merge this, update the charter text with the additional paragraph
> (which received no opposition and only support), and proceed with the
> charter review without restarting it.
>
>
>
> Can we proceed that way?
>
>
>
>                                                                 Thanks,
>
>                                                                 -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2026 7:09 AM
> *To:* Michael Jones <[e-mail]>; Christopher Inacio <
> [e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* RE: [SPICE] Christopher Inacio's Yes on
> charter-ietf-spice-01-00
>
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
>
>
> It did go to the WG, but there were no reactions to it. We'd already
> received support from others in the group and moved it forward.
>
>
>
> How critical is this change? Do we need to pull the charter out from IESG
> review? That is going to slow things down, but if we must, we must.
>
>
>
> [image: photo]
>
> *Heather Flanagan (she/hers)*
> *Principal, Spherical Cow Consulting*
>
> [image: icon] [e-mail]
>
> [image: icon] sphericalcowconsulting.com
>
> [image: linkedin] <https://us.linkedin.com/in/hlflanagan>
>
> [image: github] <https://github.com/hlflanagan>
>
>
>
>
> [image: __tpx__]
>
> On Apr 7, 2026 at 6:56 PM -0700, Michael Jones <
> [e-mail]>, wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Friday I created https://github.com/ietf-wg-spice/charter/pull/2 to
> put data structures clearly within in the scope of the SPICE charter and
> brought it to the attention of the working group. Not all data structures
> needed to facilitate commerce and trade are claims.
>
> Please merge this and apply it to the draft charter before proceeding with
> the charter review.
>
> Thank you,
> -- Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Inacio via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 6:33 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [SPICE] Christopher Inacio's Yes on charter-ietf-spice-01-00
>
> Christopher Inacio has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-spice-01-00: Yes
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-spice/
>
>
> There are no remarks associated with this position.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> SPICE mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>