On 5/19/10 12:36 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
I believe that without explicitly listing the use cases I've brought up
in the body of the charter, the additional paragraph would be a
significant step backward. I would object to chartering the group with
that paragraph added without explicitly listing any use cases including
the onse I brought up that have come forward in this discussion.
As always, text is welcome. :)
I proposed:
Although the group will seek input from and may provide advice to
"customers" working on other technologies, it will prioritize work
on the above-listed stringprep profiles and will take on additional
tasks as official milestones only after rechartering.
Seemingly you would prefer:
Based on normal working group processes for achieving consensus, the
group will attempt to gather input from, and may provide advice to,
"customers" working on other IETF technologies, including but not
limited to Network Address Identifiers (RFC 4282) and Kerberos (RFC
4120). However, the group will prioritize work on the previously
listed stringprep profiles above work on other technologies, and
will formally accept additional tasks as official milestones only
after rechartering.
Peter
--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf