Ted,
implies the need to be clarify the charter in two ways. The charter
needs to reaffirm that the IETF has change control over the
We could choose to have every charter repeat every premise for all IETF
work.
That would be wasteful, at best.
Having this point in this charter mostly serves as a statement of
mistrust, rather than providing any useful education or constraint.
charter also needs to indicate that the working group will consider
the relationship of this work to other, existing IETF technologies.
Again, a nicely open-ended and universal requirement that applies to all
working groups. It is therefore meaningless, except for its implicit
threat at more overhead and undefined requirements to satisfy.
That does not imply that it needs to adopt them, but explaining why
it chose to use, for example, this signature mechanism rather than
one of the existing ones would help the IETF understand whether this
If you have specific questions that you believe the wg needs to attend
to, then they should have been stated during the very oppe, very lengthy
(and repeated) charter development process.
Calling for the addition of a requirement that cannot be satisfied in
any predictable fashion is entirely counter-productive, Ted.
regards,
/d
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf