Subject: [Dots] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-dots-00-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 09:25:01 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dots-00-01: 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-dots/

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

The text says that the WG will reuse or extend existing standard
protocols and mechanisms, which is great!  However, is the intent for
dots to standardize those extensions (if needed)?  IOW, if an existing
protocol (for signaling, for example) is extended, I think that the WG
responsible for that protocol should be the one driving the
standardization based on the requirements from dots.  The text mentions
ipfix as an example; I know the ipfix WG is closed, so it can't take
ownership of the extensions, but the OPS area should at  least be
consulted.

After saying all that, I would suggest adding something explicit about
consulting, coordinating, etc. with other WGs that may be responsible for
any protocols being extended.  Maybe something like this:

"Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be carried
out in the working groups responsible for the protocol being modified and
in co-ordination with this working group, but may be done in this working
group after agreement with all the relevant WG chairs and responsible
Area Directors."

---

From: "Teague, Nik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:08:53 +0000

Hi,

If we did indeed extend/modify any existing protocols then my take on it
would be: if appropriate we would then submit those to the relevant
responsible WG’s or Area’s for approval/standardisation.  I would be fine
with updating the charter with the suggested text.

Thanks,

-Nik

On 08/06/2015 17:25, "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>Dots mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:09:59 +0200

Hi Alvaro,

to reply to your comment:

IMHO coordination across IETF WGs is kind of a given to me.

So I can understand why it was not mentioned before. But equally, it 
should not be a problem to add a statement to that effect.

However, I would propose to modify the text you proposed in some ways, 
because I have faith in our WGs, ADs and our community overall to 
resolve possible scope conflicts quite well and believe it should be up 
to the WGs (and ADs) to decide where a work item is addressed. E.g. one 
WG might be overly busy with other tasks and not able to address a 
certain topic within a reasonable timeframe and we should not use the 
quite strict wording in your text suggestion in this charter to limit 
our options where to put work items. Furthermore, the decision where a 
certain work item should be addressed should be determined by the WGs 
and the IETF community. This can be reflected by WG chairs, but WG 
chairs should not be seen as the decision makers themselves which it 
sounds like in your text.

So my proposal would be:

"Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close 
coordination with the working groups responsible for the protocol being 
modified, and may be done in this working group after agreement with all 
the relevant WGs and responsible Area Directors."

Best regards, Tobias

---

From: "Alvaro Retana (aretana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:44:02 +0000

On 6/10/15, 5:09 PM, "Tobias Gondrom" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Tobias:

Hi!

So my proposal would be:

"Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close coordination with the working groups responsible for the protocol being modified, and may be done in this working group after agreement with all the relevant WGs and responsible Area Directors."

That works for me.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:54:23 +0200

Hi Nik,
could you please update the text according to this text agreed by 
Alvaro, not the previous one.
Thanks, Tobias

On 10/06/15 23:44, Alvaro Retana (aretana) wrote:
> On 6/10/15, 5:09 PM, "Tobias Gondrom" <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
> Tobias:
>
> Hi!
>
>     So my proposal would be:
>
>     "Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in
>     close coordination with the working groups responsible for the
>     protocol being modified, and may be done in this working group
>     after agreement with all the relevant WGs and responsible Area
>     Directors."
>
>
> That works for me.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>

---

From: "Teague, Nik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:57:46 +0000

Tobias hi,

I have the following in the charter update now:

"Any modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close
coordination with the working groups responsible for the protocol being
modified, and may be done in this working group after agreement with all
the relevant WGs and responsible Area Directors.”

Thanks,

-Nik

On 10/06/2015 22:54, "Tobias Gondrom" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi Nik, 
>could you please update the text according to this text agreed by Alvaro,
>not the previous one.
>
>Thanks, Tobias
>
>
>On 6/10/15, 5:09 PM, "Tobias Gondrom" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>Tobias:
>
>
>Hi!
>
>
>>So
>> my proposal would be:
>>
>>"Any
>> modification of or extension to existing protocols must be in close
>[email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots
>
>

---

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:00:14 +0200

Thanks and thanks to Alvaro for the quick reply.

Best, Tobias