Subject: Re: [PMOL] Suggested updates to proposed charter wording

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:51:12 -0600

Nothing in the new charter addresses my comment on the previous version:

On 2007-9-26, at 3:09, ext Lars Eggert wrote:
> On 2007-9-25, at 21:22, ext Alan Clark wrote:
>> 1. A PMOL framework and guidelines memo that outlines the motivation
>>     for work to define performance metrics for applications  
>> transported
>>     over IETF-specified protocols, how that work fills a need and  
>> any gap
>>     in IETF-chartered work. The framework will describe the necessary
>>     elements of performance metric drafts and the various types of  
>> metrics
>>     that may be prepared in this work. The framework will also  
>> address the
>>     need to specify the intended audience and the motivation for the
>>     performance metrics. There will also be guidelines for a  
>> performance
>>     metric development process that includes entry criteria for
>>     new proposals (how a proposal might be evaluated for possible
>>     endorsement by a protocol development working group), and how a
>>     successful proposal will be developed by PMOL WG in  
>> cooperation with a
>>     protocol development WG.
>
> Some of the content of this proposed WG deliverable is what we  
> typically want to see already during the BOF proposal phase:
>
> Specifically, the "motivation for work", "how that work fills a  
> need and any gap in IETF-chartered work", "motivation for the  
> performance metrics" seem pretty relevant already when asking for a  
> BOF.
>
> Likewise, information on "the various types of metrics that may be  
> prepared in this work" seem important to define the scope for the  
> planned WG. "Entry criteria for new proposals" is also something  
> that should be in the proposed charter already.
>
> Lars
_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:01:56 -0400

Hi Lars,

We haven't ignored your comment, but it seems I haven't done
enough to address it.  I'm struggling with how much detail to
add in the charter, and hope some discussion will help refine
what's needed.

>performance metrics" seem pretty relevant already when asking for a

Our intent was to document aspects of the original BOF proposal,
which motivated the work area and identified gaps in IETF coverage,
as an Intro to the guidelines and framework memo. The proposed PMOL
charter just gives a short summary of the BOF proposal text.

Maybe we should add more background in the charter?
from the BoF minutes:
>The BOF introduced the IETF community to the possibility of a 
>generalized activity to define standardized performance metrics. The 
>existence of a growing list of Internet-Drafts on performance metrics
(with community interest in development, but in un-chartered areas)
>supports the need for this activity, and the majority of people 
>present supported the proposition that IETF should be working in 
>these areas. No one objected to any of these proposals. However, 
>many people from beyond the performance community sought 
>clarifications about the scope of the activity. The proposal was 
>deliberately made broad to cover the wide variety of performance 
>work that is currently excluded by the IPPM and BMWG charters.

or maybe we shouldn't mention the Intro material at all?

>that should be in the proposed charter already.

The scope of the WG is very limited, and it allows development of only
the two deliverables described: the guidelines and framework memo
(a process for developing performance metrics that don't fall within
other charters and their frameworks) and the SIP metrics memo.
The PMOL WG must develop the process and entry criteria for *additional*
proposals, and it will only work on additional deliverables if
explicitly chartered to do so. A key aspect of the process is that
most proposals will be vetted in a protocol development WG before
reaching PMOL WG.

(maybe that paragraph should be part of the charter)...

We're certainly trying to do something unusual in my short IETF
experience, and appreciate further suggestions or questions to
help clarify what the proposed PMOL can do.

regards,
Al