Dimitri, > => i would be less affirmative in making such statement -a priori-. in > order to consolidate our understanding, the charter should include an > item on how LISP addresses routing scalability and other design goals > (at least as much as the experiment result allows). this would at the > same time close the loop with part of the RRG work.
This is the second or third time you've said this, so I
feel the need to respond.
So here's how I would like to see this go (i.e., here's
the rule I want for these cases):
Rule: Anyone suggesting a charter milestone item must
agree to the the following conditions:
(i). You (or your agent) must commit to write the
document that fulfils the proposed
milestone, and
(ii). If you (or your agent) defaults on the
commitment described in (i). above, that
is, if the document is not delivered in a
timely fashion (where timely is defined by
the charter milestone), the charter
milestone will be removed and rechartering
the WG is *not* necessary, and
(iii). The authorative AD(s) must also agree to
these conditions.
Now, I don't know if a WG/BOF/proposer/chair can
articulate such a rule, but then, in the IETF rules are
made up as we go along, so why not (its not as if the
IETF is a legal (or even quasi-legal) system after all)?
In any event, I will say that without such a rule,
arbitrary milestones (constructed for whatever reason)
can be injected into the charter, and clearly, no one
wants that.
In the case of the document you are proposing (I think
its a document, correct me if I'm wrong), if you (or your
agent) commit to the above conditions, and if the
document you propose does not hold up/gate any other WG
document (i.e., no other WG document can have a normative
reference to this this document), I see no reason not to
add such an item. Otherwise, I would be reluctant to add
such a milestone.
Dave
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
