Re: [tram] BCP over TURN will not be in scope ... and MPLS over UDP over TURN will not be in scope ... and ...

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

Hi Cullen,

I am keeping the cc: as is in order to close this thread but let's try
and avoid cross-posting in future discussions.

Thanks for your input. I agree that explicit charters are better than
implicit ones, especially around areas that can be controversial. Given
that we are not going to recharter the WG in the next few days, we are
going to focus the session in London on items that are *explicitly*
chartered.

After London, if we need to tighten the charter somehow, we will do that.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 26/02/2014 10:26 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
> 
> On Feb 26, 2014, at 10:52 AM, Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> So ... TRAM was chartered last Thursday ...
>>
>> I'm gonna let Gonzalo (Yet Another Soon-to-be Former AD Serving as WG Chair) and Simon actually chair their working group for at least a full week before intruding further, but for now, let's assume that the working group wants to work on the milestones they signed up for last week, and see how badly that assumption blows up, rather than talk about rechartering every time someone proposes a topic that's out of scope.
>>
>> I look forward to attending the first working group session next week, and to balloting on six TRAM drafts before IETF 92.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Spencer, as the responsible AD
> 
> Makes sense - I get the desire to let some work get done. 
> 
> I worry that every time someone says something is is not in scope of this WG, it is not going to feel like an open consensus decisions but is instead going to feel like a arbitrary fiat decisions by a chair or IESG made in a dark and smoky room - I hope I am wrong. 
> 
>