Subject: [Mops] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on charter-ietf-mops-00-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 10:06:47 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-mops-00-03: 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-mops/

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

Two small editorial comments:
1) "Internet- and Internet-protocol-delivered media"
Not sure I understand the difference here. I would assume that a media that is
sent over the Internet would also use some Internet-protocol...?

2)"existing protocols and/or networks are challenged by these updated
requirements." "these" seems to be out of context now.

And two questions:

1) "If there is no longer sufficient interest in the
Working Group in a work item, the item may be removed from the list of Working
Group items."
Where/how is the list of Working Group Items maintain? Are we talking here
about working group documents, or milestones, or something else (in a wiki
maybe)? And what does removing mean? That it cannot be discussed on the mailing
list anymore? That is will not get any presentation time? Something else? Not
sure how easy it will be to enforce these things or what that means in
practice...

2) The charter only talks about documenting problems. Does that mean any kind
of BCP-like work is out of scope?

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:31:03 -0400

Hi,

Thanks — some thoughts, inline:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mops/

Yeah, this text was the result of us trying to capture the opposite 
case:  when something uses the Internet-Protocol but doesn’t go out 
over the big-I Internet.

> requirements." "these" seems to be out of context now.

Could be deleted, indeed.

> sure how easy it will be to enforce these things or what that means in

My thinking was along the lines of adopting items as formal working 
group documents (draft-ietf-mops…).  If there is no longer interest, 
the documents can be pursued as individual I-Ds, etc.

For other items — agenda time, etc — I think it will require chair 
discretion as to whether there is continued interest (and that can be 
contested on the mailing list, of course).

Yes, in practice, it’s going to take a bit of work…

> of BCP-like work is out of scope?

For operations, there is mention of documenting work arounds:
“2/ Solicit input from network operators and users to identify 
operational
issues with media delivery in and across networks, and determine 
solutions or
workarounds to those issues.”

But, for most existing technology, BCP work would probably belong in a 
different WG — one focused on that technology.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 15:37:20 +0100

Hi Leslie,

Please see inline.

> On 30. Oct 2019, at 22:31, Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Yeah, this text was the result of us trying to capture the opposite case: when something uses the Internet-Protocol but doesn’t go out over the big-I Internet.
> 
> My thinking was along the lines of adopting items as formal working group documents (draft-ietf-mops…). If there is no longer interest, the documents can be pursued as individual I-Ds, etc.

I do wonder a bit how that would actually work. There was also a discussion a while ago if it would be useful to make drafts as final. The discussion was about changing the draft name and putting this into the meta data of the draft, which kind of went nowhere. But maybe it would be nice for working group chairs to put wg docs into a new state like “final-version-but-will-not-be-published”. This could even come with the function that the doc stays on the wg datatracker page even when expired and maybe even that the author cannot update it anymore (without chairs approval). But I guess that's something we would need to discuss in the IESG first. Just an idea from my side...

> 
> For other items — agenda time, etc — I think it will require chair discretion as to whether there is continued interest (and that can be contested on the mailing list, of course).
> 

Maybe it would also be useful to say something more concrete in the charter; but to be honest I would also not really know what to say… maybe you have an idea.

> “2/ Solicit input from network operators and users to identify operational
> issues with media delivery in and across networks, and determine solutions or
> But, for most existing technology, BCP work would probably belong in a different WG — one focused on that technology.

Okay. Was just double-check. I guess you could also say this explicitly in the charter but it doesn’t have to…

Thanks!
Mirja