RE: Drafting mux WG charter

From: by way of Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (chris@innosoft.com)
Date: Tue, Feb 09 1999


Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990209185533.037f3320@localhost>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:55:33 -0500
To: ietf-http-ng@w3.org
From: Chris Newman <chris@innosoft.com> (by way of Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@w3.org>)
Subject: RE: Drafting mux WG charter

On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Josh Cohen wrote:
> I dont think that the authors of the charter truly intend
> to "punt all security".
> It seems to me that a reasonable MUX effort can get underway
> and provide good security.
> 
> Obviously, the group needs to keep security considerations in mind
> and will have some serious work ahead of them beyond just
> the security issue.  I'd like to see the group get started
> and discuss the issues going forward instead of objecting
> to the charter now.

The excludes integrated security functions and is otherwise silent on the
issue of security.  Too many WGs have left security as an afterthought and
had their output delayed months or years as a result.  The charter has to
at least say "the group will address security considerations of a MUX
layer and how security services in other layers interact with the MUX
layer".

One function of a charter is to serve as an informal contract between the
IETF and the WG.  It needs to state up front things which the WG must do
to fulfill its mission.

Even if I don't formally object to the charter on these grounds, I'd
expect the security ADs to do so if they're being vigilant.  It might be
faster to fix the charter now than try to push it through unchanged.

		- Chris