Subject: [Ideas] Deborah Brungard's Block on charter-ietf-ideas-00-06: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

From: Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:48:35 -0700

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ideas-00-06: Block

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-ideas/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As other ADs have noted, I don't think this group is ready to be chartered considering
the on-going community discussion/concerns raised and the on-going discussion
among the proponents on what they want to do.

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

FWIW - similar to Spencer, I had voted Yes to send the charter to the community
for review with the comment that I was concerned the use cases were very
diverse and it was not clear if a common approach would be achievable. The
community's concerns on basic definitions (id, mapping system, privacy) and the
inability for the proponents to clarify with concise definitions, I now don't
think this is ready to be a working group.

Instead of continuing to boil the ocean on use cases to justify motivation, it
would be more helpful to focus on what specifically are the IETF requirements
for the mapping system.

The dashed list is also boiling the ocean, it needs to be more scoped, e.g. "A
security analysis of the complete system" doesn't sound appropriate for a
Framework document. The security and operational considerations need to be
defined up-front as will scope the work. All of these are listed as "some areas
that must be considered" but this is not a research group, it needs to be much
more focused for a working group.

The charter describes a target of a common infrastructure and <one> protocol.
It gives no indication that the work needs to take into consideration the work
already done or the expectations of how it will work with the current
applications and solutions.

And no explanation of why at this time a single solution is viewed as possible
or why a single solution is the correct answer for a diversity of use cases.