Re: Confusion about ISMS rechartering

[Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

> In this instance, the whole point of the charter was to reach a
> direction within the working group that has broad architectural impact
> and then to review that decision with the community.  So, I think
> Eliot and Steve's concerns are directly tied to the chartering event.

Sam, thanks for pursuing this.  I had misunderstood the timeline, and thought 
that Eliot was raising a post-chartering issue.

As we seem to agree, such issues do arise in working groups, so the question of 
seeking broad review of major decisions DURING the wg process is a valid issue, 
albeit apparently not this time.

My own, very strong bias on situations like the current one, certainly is to 
make a charter as precise and complete as possible.  The more a charter can 
state basic assumptions and constraints, the better, from what I have seen. 
Including conceptual and architectural impacts (or issues) can only be helpful.

--

  d/

 Dave Crocker
 Brandenburg InternetWorking
 +1.408.246.8253
 dcrocker  a t ...
 WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf