On 7/1/2014 5:14 PM, Steven M Jones wrote: > By limiting this consideration to "during the life of this working > group," do we preclude the possibility of defining (in whole or in part) > how such work completed outside and after this WG could be plugged in? > Why not have the flexibility in the charter, if it doesn't make it a > required deliverable?
1. I'd like to do that. Good and important issue. 2. However, defining interfaces in the absence of knowledge about the details of what is being interfaced to pretty much never works. 3. It occurs to me that the charter /should/ make some comment about this wg's helping that other effort, beyond just 'using' its output. As a real and immediate consumer of that work, we can provide some guidance about what is needed. We aren't the sole 'experts' on the topic, but again, our need is real and immediate and concrete. So perhaps the most useful thing we can do is try to get the wg to formulate 'needs' -- I think the word 'requirements' is overblown, overused, distracting, and often inappropriately-constraining -- to communicate to that other effort? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
