what the "scope" disagreement is about

[Tony Hain]

Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> Hi, Tony,
> 
> Maybe I could be clearer...
> 
> 1. I'm wondering about the IESG just waking up and saying 
> "this work should be happening", as opposed to reviewing a 
> charter or requested change to a charter that says "this work 
> should be included in our working group charter".
> 
> 2. I'm also wondering about comminities that don't have an 
> active working group (perhaps a good example is HTTP?), so 
> there are few/no charter discussions going on. Do we still 
> expect bottom-up proposals, or do we know how to generate 
> top-down proposals?

Occasionally the IAB has recognized a need and suggested filling it. 

Tony 

> 
> Spencer
> 
> --- Tony Hain <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:
> > Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> > > My apologies to Tony for taking this couple-of-paragraphs
> > > from a very long thread on IETF-Discuss out of context, but
> > I
> > > was curious about his choice of words:
> > 
> > I specifically chose those words, because the DNS community has
> > repeatedly decided not to deal with this in the IETF, even
> > though many
> > of the members ship versions of a solution. We have a core
> > infrastructure service that is out of step with the
> > architecture of the
> > network it is being used to describe. So this is a case where
> > the IESG
> > needs to step up and task a group that has not decided to deal
> > with it
> > on its own.
> > 
> > As far as I am concerned, the IESG regularly asserts this level of
> > control when it requires specific items to be in or out of a
> > WG charter.
> > YMMV ...
> > 
> > Tony
>