On 5/19/10 12:36 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: > I believe that without explicitly listing the use cases I've brought up > in the body of the charter, the additional paragraph would be a > significant step backward. I would object to chartering the group with > that paragraph added without explicitly listing any use cases including > the onse I brought up that have come forward in this discussion.
As always, text is welcome. :) I proposed: Although the group will seek input from and may provide advice to "customers" working on other technologies, it will prioritize work on the above-listed stringprep profiles and will take on additional tasks as official milestones only after rechartering. Seemingly you would prefer: Based on normal working group processes for achieving consensus, the group will attempt to gather input from, and may provide advice to, "customers" working on other IETF technologies, including but not limited to Network Address Identifiers (RFC 4282) and Kerberos (RFC 4120). However, the group will prioritize work on the previously listed stringprep profiles above work on other technologies, and will formally accept additional tasks as official milestones only after rechartering. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
