[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: spending time on analysis [Re: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03 as WG item]
Pekka,
Why you keep going with 5 and 6 if 1 is clear ?
You insist in the charter, and I'm reading the charter, starting with 1 ...
Anyway, at the moment I see more positive feedback to get this item as a WG item than negative one ... so lets don't keep with this non-endless discussion, and wait for some more replies to see what the WG consensus is.
Regards,
Jordi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Cc: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: spending time on analysis [Re: draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03 as WG item]
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > While I agree in the importance of the analysis word, and I try to spend
> > some of my time on it, there is nothing in the charter that doesn't
> > allow to continue other works in parallel, that doesn't define new
> > transition mechanism. By the way, I'm still waiting your reply on this
> > to my previous email.
>
> Charter item (6) says:
>
> Identify open operational or security issues with the deployment
> scenarios documented in (5) [...]
>
> And item (5):
>
> 5. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs [...]
>
> ... a draft does not fulfill that criteria. IESG approval on document
> probably would be interpreted to be it. Working group last call with no
> issues raised is stretch but could maybe be considered, but anything
> prior to that would be clearly premature.
>
> Of course, it's OK to work on the subjects in parallel, maybe even using
> the mailing list if it's nonintrusive, but one should definitely not
> expect them to become official WG items prematurely.
>
> > Not allowing the WG to work on what they feel is interesting, is
> > definitively mining the WG effort, and avoiding the progress.
>
> News: that's how chartering works. Basically, the WG is chartered to do
> certain specific things, not whatever the general WG populace thinks is
> interesting.
>
> > PLEASE, do allow and facilitate the pro-activity and democracy of the
> > WG, and if needed allow the WG to interpret the charter instead of
> > mandating what you or the AD or the IESG or whoever feels is correct,
> > while the WG doesn't believe in it. Otherwise, this will not longer be a
> > WG, just a bunch of people willing to work outside of IETF.
>
> The WG does not set the charter. I fail to see why you even *consider*
> that the WG would have the authority to interpret it?
>
> Sure, if WG feels something is in charter, that's fine. But that still
> doesn't mean *anything*. The same works the other way as well.
>
> --
> Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.