Subject: [rbridge] Ingress Rbridge and FTAG again

From: Eric.Gray at marconi.com (Gray, Eric)
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 11:49:33 -0400

Silvano,

	Joe said nothing of the kind.

	You are certainly welcome to discuss your ideas.  What the 
charter does is constrain the working group to a specific set of
goals.  As far as I can tell, and I think that there have been 
others who have indicated a similar opinion, your ideas (or those
of Dinesh, and yourself) do not fit within the existing charter's
scope.  Consequently, before the WG can do anything about your
ideas - beyond listening to them - you (and Dinesh) need to get
the consensus of the WG to expand the charter to include your
goals as well as those that are already included.

	The "default" under circumstances such as the ones that
prevail now in this WG, is to continue on current course.  So,
if you want to change the current course, you have to convince
the WG that doing so is necessary.

	Nobody in the WG is under any obligation to convince you
that we should stay on the current course, as oulined in the WG
charter.  Nobody in the WG is under any obligation to justify
the way things work, here in the IETF, either.

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
--> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Silvano Gai
--> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 11:23 AM
--> To: Joe Touch; Dinesh G Dutt
--> Cc: rbridge at postel.org
--> Subject: Re: [rbridge] Ingress Rbridge and FTAG again
--> 
--> 
--> Joe,
--> 
--> Let's get this straight so we don't waste any more time: 
--> "are you saying
--> that the WG charter is written, the A&P statement is drafted" and
--> therefore the WG is no longer interested in listening to other
--> requirements?
--> 
--> -- Silvano
--> 
--> 
--> > -----Original Message-----
--> > From: rbridge-bounces at postel.org 
--> [mailto:rbridge-bounces at postel.org]
--> On
--> > Behalf Of Joe Touch
--> > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:36 AM
--> > To: Dinesh G Dutt
--> > Cc: rbridge at postel.org
--> > Subject: Re: [rbridge] Ingress Rbridge and FTAG again
--> > 
--> > 
--> > 
--> > Dinesh G Dutt wrote:
--> > > Hi Eric,
--> > >
--> > > Gray, Eric wrote:
--> > >> The argument that "You're changing things, and while 
--> you're at it,
--> > >> why not change these other things" is a particularly 
--> obnoxious old
--> > >> Dinosaur.
--> > >>
--> > > I have shown the reasons and with the exception of you 
--> and Joe, I
--> > > haven't heard any objection to including the ingress Rbridge (at
--> least)
--> > > or the FTAG. So, from a democratic spirit, it is upto you two to
--> give us
--> > > technical reasons for objecting instead of saying "its 
--> not in the
--> > > charter" or "you can't change that". The charter 
--> doesn't explicitly
--> > > forbid doing traceroute, for example.
--> > 
--> > Charters define what is permitted; that which is not permitted is
--> > prohibited, unless it is needed to support what is permitted.
--> > 
--> > Otherwise, charters would be wide-open to anything not 
--> prohibited; we
--> > don't have time to enumerate that list.
--> > 
--> > Joe
--> 
--> 
--> _______________________________________________
--> rbridge mailing list
--> rbridge at postel.org
--> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge
-->