If we can't agree what is going into a charter, how we are going to agree where work is going to happen with even a bigger audience to decide.
The focus is all wrong. The focus should be on the work and not the process. Dino On Sep 30, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Scott Brim wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 11:32, Templin, Fred L > <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> wrote: >> I would agree if the charter could point to a webpage >> that lists the RRG RFC publications, i.e., in the same >> way that IETF working group wepages do. But, the only >> RRG webpages I have found have outdated and incomplete >> information, and do not cite the RFC publications. So, >> I would prefer to include the text I proposed, or >> something close to it, since the work is so closely >> related to LISP. > > IMHO a WG charter is not the place to have a listing of other > drafts/RFCs that are not in scope, even if they are related somehow. > If other pages are outdated, that's where the problem should be fixed. > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > lisp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list lisp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
