Hi Fred,
On Oct 2, 2009, at 11:28 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Margaret,
Although I support the use of milestones to track work items, I would
prefer to see the SEAL milestone dropped from the charter until we
can
confirm that the above conditions have been met for that item. I
personally think they have been demonstrated for the other two items
(IPID and tunneling issues), but I would not object to holding off on
those items if anyone else would prefer that we check that these
conditions have been met before including them.
It may come as no great surprise, but I prefer to
retain the three milestones currently on the list.
My message may have come across more negatively than I meant it...
Although I'd need to spend more time understanding existing tunneling
protocols to form a solid opinion, I have nothing against the idea of
publishing the SEAL specification.
I do think that we need to be careful, especially in a somewhat open-
focus WG, not to end up with WG milestones for which there isn't solid
WG support, as described in the conditions I listed from the TSVWG
charter. It is quite possible that SEAL will meet those conditions
within the new intarea WG, I just don't personally think that we've
demonstrated that it meets those conditions, yet. In some cases, that
may just be because we haven't asked the questions yet.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
