I thought the way we usually do this, is to have milestones with a timeline and have a sentence saying: When these milestones have been reached the working group will recharter or close.
Given the planned work and the rather near-time date, I can already say that they have to extend this date which in this case means a full recharter and processing. While updating milestones can be done by the chairs. Mirja > Am 01.09.2016 um 03:39 schrieb Kathleen Moriarty > <[email protected]>: > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> That’s actually a good point that I forgot to mention as well. Actually my >> question is, why is this limited needed at all? > > The WG has had this in their charter for some time. The previous > chairs with the WG have wanted to keep a window set since this is a > maintenance WG as a way to prevent it from living on beyond it's > usefulness. They believe that it's okay to shutdown the WG if it > dwindles and would like to have ways to determine if that is > necessary. They are also fine with a temporary closing to then reopen > as another follow on effort. This is a follow on WG itself after the > original WG responsible for IPsec had closed for a few years. > >> >> >>> Am 31.08.2016 um 21:36 schrieb Alissa Cooper <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for >>> charter-ietf-ipsecme-10-00: No Objection >>> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >>> introductory paragraph, however.) >>> >>> >>> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ipsecme/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> This seems like a lot of documents for a 16-month window based on this >>> group's past publication rate. Good to be ambitious, but I'm just >>> wondering how realistic this is. > > Yes, it's ambitious. I'll leave that to the chairs to respond. In > the past they have tried to keep the date to a reasonable one to > complete work or to close if the WG became too inactive since it's > along-standing one. It has gotten some new life recently, so I don't > expect this WG to close too soon. > >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Kathleen > _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
