Margaret, > -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 9:06 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Scott Brim; Internet Area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea charter > > > 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 came across a few items in the SEAL spec that still needed to be addressed wrt the comments from Joe, Eliot and yourself. I really think you will now find this to be a greatly improved version of the document: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-intarea-seal-07.txt > 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. I think at least wrt question 3) (sufficient and timely review), the above already demonstrates that significant and timely improvements were made based on review input. IMHO, the work is now also far enough along to satisfy the other criterion as well - should this be phrased in the form of a question? Thanks - Fred [email protected] > > Margaret > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
