moving on, was Re: Fw: WG Review: ...

[Edward Lewis <lewis@tislabs.com>]

As much as I hate to cut off communication on a topic, I don't think the
revent thread on the charter is in any way is helping us arrive at
protocol.  In fact, I might go so far as to say that this thread has gone
off-topic for the mailing list.

All I can say here is that we have already had a discussion on the charter,
and it has not yet been approved by the IESG.  I am waiting for feedback
from the IESG before anything else can be done on this matter.  Further
discussion on this is just like spinning tires in mud.

Let's get back to discussions on the requirements document (if there is any
more to be held).  I assume there is consensus that the requirements
document should be admitted to the WG (once we are official).

Suggestions for the Feb 20 meeting agenda are welcome.

I'd also like to hear thoughts about organizing a design team (whether we
should, size, shape, nominees perhaps).

I think it is about time we begin to look at the EPP document.  Does the
latest EPP draft meet the latest draft of requirements?  Is there an
objection to including EPP in the WG set of documents?

If there is an alternative proposal to be considered, please identify it.

If there are other documents that should be added to the WG, please
identify them.  (The definitions document will likely be one.)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                NAI Labs
Phone: +1 443-259-2352                      Email: lewis@tislabs.com

Dilbert is an optimist.

Opinions expressed are property of my evil twin, not my employer.