Subject: [dispatch] Benoit Claise's No Objection on charter-ietf-dispatch-02-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 07:39:34 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dispatch-02-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dispatch/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I received the necessary clarifications from both Barry and Ben during
the IESG telechat. Thanks, Benoit
=============================================================================

(*)  Disclaimer: I've not been following RAI/ART work in the IETF and I
don't know whether the DISPATCH process has been efficient or not. So
I'll mainly make observations.

I understand Harald's point,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-kiAbvZDTCLets4szoXmaCIgrs4,
When I read the charter, it's like an extra procedure, specific to ART.
For example, if I want a BoF, I must first go to DISPATCH to get their
approval? Same thing for AD-sponsored document?

    The Dispatch working group is chartered to consider proposals for
new
    work in the ART area and identify, or help create, an appropriate
venue
    for the work.

Btw, no change here: this sentence is basically unchanged compared to the
previous charter.

In the past, I was told that DISPATCH was similar to the OPSAWG WG.
Let me observe it's not. "The DISPATCH WG will not do any protocol work",
while OPSAWG might.
>From the OPSAWG charter:

    The Operations and Management Area receives occasional proposals for
    the development and publication of RFCs dealing with operational and
    management topics that are not in scope of an existing working group
    and do not justify the formation of a new working group. The OPSAWG
    will serve as the forum for developing such work items in the IETF.

Obviously, redirecting work to existing WGs is also an OPSAWG task.
And when the work is substantial, a new WG can even be created. Ex: EMAN 
in the past

I prefer the OPSAWG approach (*).

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 17:58:19 -0600

Benoit,

Does the update at [1] address your original concern?

Thanks!

Ben.

[1] 
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-dispatch%2Fwithmilestones-02-01.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-dispatch%2Fwithmilestones-02-02.txt.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:49:39 +0100

> Does the update at [1] address your original concern?
Yes, thank you.

Regards, B.
> .

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:03:44 +0000

Hi Ben,

> On 8 Feb 2016, at 23:58, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Benoit,
> 
> [1] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-dispatch%2Fwithmilestones-02-01.txt&url2=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fcharter-ietf-dispatch%2Fwithmilestones-02-02.txt.

I think this is an improvement!