On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 6:32 AM Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> On 5 Feb 2016, at 01:53, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Thanks for the suggestion! I'd prefer to try to recharter the current
> group
> >> with any new work items first, before this more drastic option. But
> glancing
> >> at the current charter just now, it might already cover some of the work
> >> that I outlined earlier.
> >
> > If you have a clear, well focused list of things to do, you'll probably
> find that setting up a new WG is easier than rechartering.
>
> In my experince: It depends. Either they are about the same amount of work
> or rechartering is slightly easier, unless ADs have a desire to shutdown
> the WG.
>

Yes,  it depends -- on many things. These include how large of a change to
the charter is proposed, how similar a new WG would be, what the WG wants
to do, how the WG has been performing until this point, how receptive the
ADs are, recent history and the phase of the moon.

Without seeing specific documents / proposed charter text it is really hard
to know if it is something that this WG should do.
We (Ondrej and I) specifically added:
"When work on currently chartered documents is complete the WG
may re-charter if sufficiently pressing new work is identified.

DANE is not intended to be a long-lived catch-all WG for all
public key distribution in DNS issues and so will generally not
adopt new work items without re-chartering." because we didn't want to just
limp along, staying alive just to stay alive.
Olafur and I proposed wrapping things up largely because we hadn't seen a
large amount of concrete proposed work, and reviews on existing work were
getting harder / it was the same set of voices[0]. Again, we are happy that
people want to get work done, and we are happy to adopt new work, recharter
if needed, whatever -- but this requires everyone (yes, including the
chairs!) doing their bit -- for example, there has been very little
discussion on draft-huque-dane-client-cert, and much of what discussion
there has been is on the prefix / label. Please, can folk review the
content of the document for other issues?
Also, we have heard that people would like to get new work going - it is
getting close to BA, so if you have work, we'd like to see some documents
so that we can discuss them, please request meeting time, etc.


> > It certainly comes with less baggage.
>
> True.
>
>
Indeed.

W


>
> _______________________________________________
> dane mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
>
_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane

Reply via email to