[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Tin-man charter
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Ross Callon wrote:
> At 09:46 AM 6/15/2004 -0400, George Jones wrote:
> >On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Chris Lonvick wrote:
> > > I'd like to suggest that this WG also draw upon the works already created,
> > > and efforts already underway in other SDOs (Standards Developing
> > > Organizations). Specifically ANSI T1.276, the NRIC V "Best Practices",
> > > ITU-T M.3016 and X.805, the T1S1 effort on securing signalling, and, I'm
> > > sure, others. I'd also like to suggest that the WG form liaisons with
> > > these other SDOs and perhaps attempt to cross-certify standards. Putting
> > > on my Cisco hat for a moment, I'd really like for there to be a consistent
> > > set of product requirements to follow. I really don't want to see one SDO
> > > stipulate "security feature X" while another mandates "Y" for the same
> > > purpose.
> >Thanks Chris. Agreed.
> I agree that we should "draw upon" other works -- which to me means
> "consider as inputs and take seriously". I also think that liaison makes
> I am a bit worried regarding what is involved in cross-certifying standards.
I know that some work has been done with the ITU-T. However, I'll agree
that this WG should probably not be the first test case in this area. :-)
> > > The only Goal/Milestone that I can see coming from that activity would be
> > > a document (Informational RFC?) citing all of the relevent standards and
> > > providing a snapshot of the efforts of other SDOs in this area. If that
> > > makes sense, I'll volunteer to produce that document, for submission to
> > > the IESG, within 6 months.
> This makes sense to me, particularly if documents related to the other
> efforts can be published as Internet Drafts, or are otherwise available
> >I'm thinking this should almost come before the framework, as a kind
> >of survey to reduce and frame the work that needs to be done.
> I think that large standards groups (including but not limited to the IETF)
> are so good at slowing down work that I think that we should avoid writing
> dependencies or delays into charters. Thus while it makes sense to do this
> work quickly, and it makes sense for its milestone date to be early, I don't
> think that we should wait for it nor write a dependency into the charter.
I'd agree with that. I was thinking that the due-date for the completion
of this proposed ID should be the same time as the framework. I can
attempt to get the core material in the ID quickly so that it's available
to the framework'ers sooner. Does that help?