RE: Drafting mux WG charter

Ok, Im in agreement then, I thought you were objecting
more to the effort than the language of the charter.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Newman [mailto:chris@innosoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 3:52 PM
> To: Josh Cohen
> Cc: Mike Spreitzer; ietf-http-ng@w3.org; discuss@apps.ietf.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
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 February 1999 20:59:31 UTC