Re: IETF mission boundaries (Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mis

Scoping is certainly used successfully as an argument at the WG level, 
through the more common pronnouncement "....that would require a change 
to the charter.." Scoping aids WGs in being able to move the ball 
forward in the direction of predfined goals, and hence is a process aid. 
This is scoping at a micro level. I would think that the role of mission 
is to provide scoping at a macro level, the kind of scoping that 
determines whether a WG is established in the first place or not.
More importantly I would suggest, the simple requirement for making 
binary decisions about whether something is in scope or not is necessary 
but not sufficient. An institution surely needs some way to guide its 
priorities as well. So one could for example agree with Eric's 
definition of what the IETF's mission is, but once that is done, what 
then guides the priorities of the IETF? I think you will find this to be 
at the heart of the debate:
scoping=>smaller workload=>focused differentiation in the standards 
marketplace+better quality output.
Every entity must decide what it is going to do uniquly better than any 
other entity. This is the purpose of mission. Generic catchall missions 
do not help entities keep the eye on that particular ball.