Subject: [tram] TRAM approved for IETF and external review/next steps

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 16:23:55 -0600

Dear TRAMsters,

I wanted to share this with you, from the *draft* telechat narrative 
minutes today:

     4 Working Group Actions

4.1 WG Creation
4.1.1 Proposed for IETF Review
. TURN Revised and Modernized (tram)
    Token: Spencer Dawkins
   Telechat::

     Amy: Version -06 has no blocking comments, Hearing no objections, 
this is approved.
     Amy: We will send an announcement to new-work, and put this on the 
agenda.

So, here's what this means:

The IESG and IAB have looked over the proposed charter (current text is 
at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-tram/), and they think 
it's plausible enough to ask the rest of the IETF for comments.

We were able to work through concerns from Barry , (that you've seen) 
and from Sean (tightening up the language around DTLS). You can review 
the change history at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-tram/history/.

The proposed charter will also be shared with other SDOs that 
participate in the new-work mailing list, to collect their thoughts and 
identify any potential conflicts or gaps.

If we get positive feedback, we'll put TRAM on an upcoming formal 
telechat agenda, for approval to create a working group. That could 
happen before London, but TRAM will meet in London, whether as a WG or 
as a BOF.

What would be helpful to me, at this point, is for you folks to converge 
on the first two or three problem areas an approved working group should 
have as milestones.

You can do that on the list, or you can spend the first meeting slot 
figuring that out. I'd prefer if you can figure that out on the list.

So, if you could start a thread for each problem area you'd like to see 
as a priority, that would be AWESOME ...

Thanks, and thanks for the work you've already done to get this far.

Spencer

---

From: Oleg Moskalenko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:18:15 -0800

The wording is somewhat not clean:

"The work will include the addition of DTLS as an additional transport"

I'd change it to a cleaner version:

"The work will include the addition of DTLS as a new STUN transport"

Thanks

Oleg

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Spencer Dawkins <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>     Amy: Version -06 has no blocking comments, Hearing no objections, this
> is approved.
> The IESG and IAB have looked over the proposed charter (current text is at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-tram/), and they think it's
> plausible enough to ask the rest of the IETF for comments.
>
> We were able to work through concerns from Barry , (that you've seen) and
> from Sean (tightening up the language around DTLS). You can review the
> change history at https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/charter-ietf-tram/history/.
>
> The proposed charter will also be shared with other SDOs that participate
> in the new-work mailing list, to collect their thoughts and identify any
> potential conflicts or gaps.
>
> If we get positive feedback, we'll put TRAM on an upcoming formal telechat
> agenda, for approval to create a working group. That could happen before
> London, but TRAM will meet in London, whether as a WG or as a BOF.
>
> So, if you could start a thread for each problem area you'd like to see as
> a priority, that would be AWESOME ...
>
> _______________________________________________
> tram mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tram
>