[scrm-pvt] SCRM WG charter draft

[Wijnen, Bert (Bert)]

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scrm-private at ggf.org [mailto:owner-scrm-private at ggf.org]On
> Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 11:32
> To: scrm-private at ggf.org
> Subject: [scrm-pvt] SCRM WG charter draft
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Please find a draft charter of SCRM-WG and related seven questions and
> answers. They are fully based on our signed MoU and our discussions.
> 
I do not think IETF signed an MoU, did we?

> Although we plan to review these documents at the upcoming SCRM call 
> on June 6th, I would give a big welcome to questions and/or comments 
> by email in advance. 
> 

W.r.t. the charter, I think that we should add explicit dates and
time-slots for formal approval process byu each organization.
Maybe others can just decide for their organization, but if
you want a formal OK from IETF on any output documents, then
I suspect that I need to go through 4-week IETF Last Call and
IESG approval process. If anyone in IETF has issues with the
documents in Last Call, often several more weeks are needed
to get agreement. And the result may be that they do want
changes to the document as well.

Now, the proposed documents are (I guess) informational documents,
and so they may pass through IETF much more easily. 

> After getting green light at the next SCRM call, I will revise and submit 
> these documents to GGF steering group for approval. If it runs smoothly, 
> the WG is approved before GGF14 (June 27).
> 
I have no objection to forming the WG.
Now... it seems you want the IETF to be a formal participant.
Do I understand that correctly, or would you rather see that I
motivate current IETF participants to also become individual
participants of the GGF WG-to-be?


w.r.t. the Q&A, question 4.

- I know/think that ITU-T NGN MFG has also an objective to get a summary
  of applicable NM standards in their NGN space. It is not exactly the
  same... but similar. That is why I suggested in the past to get Dave
  Sidor involved.
- I know that also ETSI TISPAN WG 8 is doung a document (lots of contentrs
  already) that is a taxonomy of NM related standards. Seems even more
  overlapping (competing?) than the NGN MFG work.

Bert
> Thanks,
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
> 
> 
>