To:
Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:07:06 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:39:42 PST." <5.1.0.7.2.20010204091746.01d0bcf0@brandenburg.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: WG starting point - WG query
> So I am personally requesting feedback from the others on this list, > concerning consensus about use of Scott's existing work: I concur with the proposition that extensive community review has taken place (since -43 for some, since -48 for others, and at -49 and on -announce and now -provreg), and with the proposition that Scott's requirements and protocol drafts have general support. > The terms of a working group charter need to have consensus of the > proto-working group. In other words, it is not just produced by the chair > and the IESG. It has to have support by those who will be participating in > the working group. If it were otherwise there would be an action item to the poisson list. [necessity and authority to make WG work-product alterations from any initial text, deleted for space.] > So my question to the working group: > > 1. Shall the working group take Scott's Requirements document and > Scott's protocol specification is direct input, and then seek to refine them? Hum. > Or: > > 2. Shall the working group start from scratch and seek full > development of Requirements and full development of a protocol > specification, including possible choice among competing specifications? Non-hum. > In my opinion, alternative #2 usually costs a working group no less than > 6-12 months EXTRA. Taking as much as 2 years EXTRA is not unusual! Possibly understated, given the uniqueness of working in a politicised area. It took the W3C's P3P activity the first two+ years of its life to scope "privacy" and "preferences", and its third year to deliver a very modest work. Cheers, Eric