Certainly one of the reasons I requested IETF-wide review for the ISMS
recharter is so that decisions like this can be reviewed by the
community. The IAB gets to see charters at about the same time as the
IESG does; they have sent no negative comments to this charter.
Sam, I've tried to search the ietf-announce archives, google, etc. for any sort
of announcements, outside of the isms working group, concerning the draft
re-chartering text for isms. Unfortunately I have not been able to find it, so
I do not know what request of yours you are referring to.
In any event, I think the significance of Eliot's (and Steve Bellovin's)
postings have less to do with a chartering event and more to do with decisions
made DURING a working group's normal activities. In particular, when a working
group gets to the point of making a decision that has broad architectural or
operational impact, it is the expertise of ADs, IAB members, and other senior
participants, that can serve to raise a question to the larger community,
exactly as Eliot is now doing.
What I took from Steve Bellovin's posting was the implication that his valid
concerns were expressed in a more limited context. What I am suggesting is that
we should get into the habit of having such concerns raised in the broader
community, when the impact is this large.
--
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