Subject: RE: IDR WG charter

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 17:34:21 -0700

> In those terms, I'd reject until we can understand better about
> what we are trying to do with the charter, and how to handle it.

The current charter, with the specific tasks listed and the statement
that no other work can be taken on without a charter update, was agreed
upon between the WG and the previous ADs.  I suppose the discussion
thinking that this stuff is new shows how much attention most people
normally pay to the charter?...

  Bill

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 18:12:07 -0700

Bill,

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but for my clarification:  The proposed
changes to the charter do not put a stop on all new work, or even
new work items being adopted by the wg.  The new charter instead:

 - Prohibits advancement of a wg work item to RFC status before
   the base spec is advanced to at least Draft Standard.
 - Has the requirement that new wg items must have a spot on the
   agenda, and must be approved by the routing area AD's.

So new internet drafts could be adopted as wg items, with wg consensus
and AD approval, but could not advance to RFC status before the base
bgp spec.

That would make sense to me, especially for standards-track extentions,
since extentions require a stable, well-defined base to extend.

Andrew

On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 05:34:21PM -0700, Bill Fenner wrote:
> Delivered-To: [email-masked]
> Delivered-To: [email-masked]
> Delivered-To: [email-masked]
> From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: IDR WG charter
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 17:34:21 -0700
> Versions: dmail (solaris) 2.5a/makemail 2.9d
> Precedence: bulk
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Sep 2002 00:36:26.0062 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A0196E0:01C253AB]
> 
>