Subject: [homegate] Current Draft Charter - Feedback Needed

From: Jason Livingood <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:29:08 -0500

We have received virtually no feedback since the BoF on the charter.  The
charter is on the homegate wiki now, at:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/HOMEGATE

Action items / requests:
1  Please review the charter at
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/HOMEGATE
2  Please reply to this mailing list as follows:
    a  Charter looks good / no changes
    b  I¹d like to propose change X / Y / Z to the charter

Thanks!
Jason

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:38:00 +0100

Jason Livingood wrote:
> We have received virtually no feedback since the BoF on the charter. 
>  The charter is on the homegate wiki now, at:
> 1 – Please review the charter at 
> 2 – Please reply to this mailing list as follows:
>     a – Charter looks good / no changes
>     b – I’d like to propose change X / Y / Z to the charter
>

2b, looks good to me,

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
                                                                  H.L.Mencken

---

From: Matthew Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:36:54 +0000

Jason,

I think the charter looks good but could use a little more clarity 
around what documents will be produced, and what the milestones will be. 
At present the impression is that two documents will be produced (one 
for IPv4 only, one for dual-stack). One area where this is confusing is 
that I imagine that both of these documents will include 
security-related topics, but those are currently de-prioritised in the 
prioritisation list. If both documents require all topics in the 
prioritisation list to be addressed, what is the point of the list? So, 
more clarity is needed I think.

Mat

On 02/02/2010 18:29, Jason Livingood wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> homegate mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homegate

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:40:42 +0100

On 3 feb 2010, at 13:36, Matthew Ford wrote:

> I think the charter looks good but could use a little more clarity around what documents will be produced, and what the milestones will be. At present the impression is that two documents will be produced (one for IPv4 only, one for dual-stack). One area where this is confusing is that I imagine that both of these documents will include security-related topics, but those are 

How does that make any sense? IPv4 home gateways have existed for a decade, there is no point in writing up a single purpose document for those.

---

From: Jason Livingood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:57:32 -0500

IMHO the point of the prioritization list was simply to help us organize
what topics were most important to work on sooner rather than later.  In one
example, I could imaging that a -00 draft might address some of the higher
priority items and not (initially) the lower priority items, which would be
added later as the document evolved.

Let me ponder how I might structure that section differently, as you might
see in a normal charter.

Thx
Jason