what the "scope" disagreement is about

Spencer Dawkins spencer_dawkins at yahoo.com
Thu May 1 14:17:07 CEST 2003


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?

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


More information about the Problem-statement mailing list