This is pretty good, thank you. I have one further comment. You guys have
prioritized three of the work items:
"The first three items (architecture, deployment models, impacts) need
to be completed first before other items can be submitted as RFCs."
But it's not clear to me that these (especially architecture and impacts) can
be said to have been properly analyzed until some of the lower-priority items
(I'm thinking of threats, cache, ETR sync) have been fleshed out. So although I
understand your desire to move these three forward I question whether the
strong mandate to do them first is a good idea. Possibly continue to state that
they're a priority without actually gating other work, so that the WG can make
its own decision about working on dependencies as needed?
On Mar 8, 2012, at 12:25 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, John. Would a modified charter with these changes
work for you:
Ietf mailing list