Subject: [nsc] SFC WG charter

From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 18:27:53 +0000

Greetings,

As we get closer to the SFC BOF in Vancouver I would like to solicit any additional feedback on the SFC charter.

The charter has been discussed at length on the mailing list and the current version may be found here -> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/sfc/charter/.

Assuming that a WG is formed, I believe that we have a reasonably solid charter that will produce a set of work items for the new WG. Any disagreement with this assessment? Does anyone believe the charter is missing any substantial items that the WG should be addressing, or contains items that should not be in scope for the WG?

Jim

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:03:37 -0400

Hi Jim.

One thing I think should be clarified is that the charter refers to
both architecture and framework documents and in the deliverables even
implies both will be produced. I assume that we want to produce only
one document, not two.

The IETF seems to use framework and architecture mostly
interchangably, and unless someone can articulate why we need two
documents, and what the difference between them would be, we should
clarify the charter.

Thomas

---

From: "Jim Guichard (jguichar)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:04:50 +0000

I agree.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 28, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Thomas Narten" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jim.
>

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 16:17:39 -0400

I had hoped that we could produce an architecture document.  While the 
IETF sometimes uses "framework" to mean the same thing, sometimes it 
uses the word to mean something more general.

Yours,
Joel

On 10/28/13 4:03 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> nsc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsc
>