Hi Sheng, > On 16 Mar 2019, at 01:56, Sheng Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Eliot, > > As you know, the charter text is different from the milestones. In charter > text, we will have a paragraph to describe the BRSKI relevant works. In > principle, all BRSKI works, even those have not been mentioned, would be > covered. So, BRSKI works, no matter they are listed as milestones or not, are > in WG scope.
Thanks. That’s what I was aiming at. Are you looking for some proposed text? > > Milestones are these work items that WG MUST deliver in a limited time, say a > year or one and half years. So, as WG chairs, we would like to have a shorter > list for each period, for which every work item has enough energy to complete > in time. This is also IESG would like to see. We could easily add milestones > later when the WG had shown enough interests and energy for new in-scope > works. > > “+ One BRSKI document” means newly adopt one more BRSKI document. The reason > that we do not want too many new BRSKI document immediately is that the WG > need energy to guarantee the current adopted BRSKI works, including the main > BRSKI document and constrained voucher, to be completed as soon as possible > with high quality. > I think we’re coming close to needing a bit of a work plan for just the BRSKI documents alone. That is- it’s not just how many documents but which ones, in order to accomplish which functions. At this point, I am presuming that the base document is just about done. The constrained-voucher doc looks like it needs to get pushed over the finish line. And then, it seems to me our chartering discussion might do well to focus down a bit on what is needed for different operating environments, so as to help sort overlap in drafts with an understanding of who wants to commit what code. Eliot
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
