Subject: RE: WG Charter Proposal v2

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 11:41:01 -0500

I did make a statement similar to that - it wasn't specifically directed
at individual contributions - it was directed at this working group being
dependent on deliverables from anywhere outside of the working group to
complete its work. Consider the machinations we had to go through to decide
how to handle LDAPEXT's failure to produce an ACM standard and the
motivation
for this comment becomes clear. A similar failure either on the part of
another
working group or an individual to produce a document that can be published
as
an RFC represents a similar risk that I as co-chair will seek to avoid if
possible.

That comment was also not as strong or as broad as you are recalling. I made
the comment in response to your suggestion of dissecting certain aspects of
LDUP specs out into separate documents. Those types of dissections were what
I was referring to when I made this comment. If any such dissections occur,
I
will require that any such newly created documents become working group
documents.
As these new documents won't represent new work (we merely chose to create a
separate I-D to work on the concept we already were pursuing), a charter
revision
is not required all that is required is that the I-Ds be published under the
LDUP
portion of the I-D namespace. This is simply to help minimize the risks
associated
with having such documents worked on outside of the working group. We
already have
enough risk to manage. I will not as a co-chair allow additional risk of
this type
to be added.

With regard to *existing* individual contributions that LDUP documents may
need
to reference, the working group needs to discuss/decide if it wants to add
those
items to its work program.

I note that there are more risks associated with documents who's editors are
not accountable to the WG than documents who's editors are accountable to
the
working group.

However, I do not believe it to be appropriate for any co-chair to require
that an existing individual I-D become a WG document unless the WG agrees
that it should take on the deliverable. I didn't make a statement requiring
this to happen. I have strongly argued that it should in the past.

I do believe it is appropriate and necessary for me as a co-chair to manage
risk associated with existing WG deliverables in the manner that I described
above.

Chris Apple - Principal Architect

DSI Consulting, Inc.

mailto:[email-masked]

http://www.dsi-consulting.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: WG Charter Proposal v2

Chris, at IETF#56, you made some comments regarding problems this group had
in
the past with referencing individual I-D and how you, as chair, would
require
that all of the individual I-Ds which this WG depended upon would be brought
into the WG and treated as WG I-Ds.  Can you clarify what your intended to
say
at IETF#56 with regard to WG handling of these individual I-Ds?  Thanks,
Kurt

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 11:22:15 -0800

Thanks for the clarification.   Comments in line.

At 08:41 AM 4/1/2003, Chris Apple wrote:
>I will require that any such newly created documents become working group
>documents.

Require?

>items to its work program.

Yes, the WG needs to discuss/decide this.

My opinion:  For each "work in progress" the WG believes it needs to
have completed for it to complete, it should state what that it will,
if necessary, undertake the dependent work.  Note here, I do not suggest
a general statement, but a set of per I-D specific statements.  Something
like:
        The LDUP work requires development of a suitable XXXX feature.
        Currently the WG intends to reference draft-joe-xxxx being developed
        on an individual basis.  The WG may, if it becomes necessary,
        undertake the development of the XXXX feature.  If and when that
        becomes necessary, the WG will negotiate appropriate milestones
        with its AD.

---

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:58:43 -0500

From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 2:22 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: WG Charter Proposal v2

Require?

CWA> This particular topic could prove to be a rat hole while its still
     all based on the theory of dissecting documents. Lets see where future
     discussion leads that is about the technical merits of moving specific
     features out of an existing LDUP document. My point about minimizing
     risk to completing our work program in short order should be noted.

CWA> Requiring that documents primarily focusing on features extracted
     from an existing LDUP document is a strategy that I will pursue
     if it actually comes to that. While there would be nothing I could
     do to stop an individual from publishing such a document outside
     of the LDUP portion of the I-D namespace, I would hope that folks
     will keep in mind what's in the best interest of the LDUP WG according
     to the WG Co-Chairs. Creating new dependencies on new documents
     external to the WG will create more risk than is called for.

CWA> I wanted to respond because you seemed to be unclear about what I
     could have meant by the word "require" in this context. This particular
     topic doesn't need to be resolved to revise our charter because it
     has not been suggested as a topic for inclusion. Lets defer any further
     discussion on this particular topic until we are actually coping with
     the reality of dissecting specific features from specific documents.
     We cannot proceed with that until we are able to move on to revising
     the documents themselves per the charter revision proposal.

CWA> Sounds like a reasonable way to identify external dependencies with
     one modification - I don't think it's appropriate to reference a
     specific I-D file name in a WG charter - but some other way of
     referring to it (a paraphrasing of the document title perhaps).

     Document editors should post their planned external references to works
     in progress to the mailing list so we can have the complete set known
     at this time. These postings should be made before the April 7th end
date
     of the comment window on the charter revision proposal.

DSI Consulting, Inc.