Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 1, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 01/09/16 10:39, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote: >> 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. > > Yep, that is the usual approach. The ipsecme wg however have > not taken the usual approach for quite a while now and that's > also ok. As Kathleen explained they've tended to have a drop > dead date in the charter as a way to motivate folks to have made > sufficient progress by that date. I think they've come close to > closing for that reason a couple of times over the last few > years. > > IIRC, that was started because there was a fear of having > loads and loads of seemingly reasonable work items, few of > which were of enough interest to be finished in a timely manner. > (I'm open to correction on that though.) > Yes and they've also reconsidered drafts that have been accepted. If they think an approach is not going to be feasible after more research, they've dropped the work. > One can of course wonder if that's the best approach, but I > think it's perfectly fine that different WGs use different ways > of doing things like this. It's also fine that the IESG ask about > it of course, but we (the IESG) should also be careful to not give > the impression we're trying to shoe-horn all WGs into using the > same management techniques. (I don't think that's what's happening, > but one could get that impression maybe.) I think this WG and SACM are my only two with a deadline and this one is from the WG themselves. Thanks, Kathleen > > Cheers, > S. > >> >> 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
