Re: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-anima-01-05: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 01 May 2019 20:39 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: anima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E435120170; Wed, 1 May 2019 13:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2aNhbOJbaZaQ; Wed, 1 May 2019 13:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x436.google.com (mail-pf1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BADAE120094; Wed, 1 May 2019 13:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x436.google.com with SMTP id j11so9094625pff.13; Wed, 01 May 2019 13:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dQeVwTxImQ+upo90g7Jv/bxWCqQq49Iugr0/5KASPi8=; b=DZVTNTnorvaywxdimo1bGaJmdHbNfHEoJV2GF+TUkqll3bYyOJFcluGfbSYjf7ikUZ Wyug9MSeoKB9Ud0YzBoVtAnkpPtbB0mymPMmisCepKyyj1FgrVHCLdPmHxaP0uOQ7y0E 5BpjO9wW1djEyo1yvVWua1B1y2Cxlco230TAYdK43CzhfATPnQCiJ/J/gjDXfOnyI84d VF9lqMsN1ezcML/O0RCplypn7AhEcWHWwVsKDZWQd1OgR09j/ZpeVTfbaGHec1R6uZiP /bfIadoVvrYepJ6CKTCbyerRmW6EHQARo/TZpV4MLofNYZuqlkiYloP35axVD2C8P4Sk QM3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dQeVwTxImQ+upo90g7Jv/bxWCqQq49Iugr0/5KASPi8=; b=INImcXhocI/+PIewjOSDjFgJTU/tVD+hDwbSs/+Rrq6RwzQDZUEOjnoYzQJeGjfFYK odp6wEcMbYv0GdQ9XGhYRdivU0BOJpvB/qVUWVgFTzq5aefPj8OWHc3PIWCsQnIg9M8T KQt5epHAMULu4326QmTL/K+ddX1SjI5eimVjH52fY8+YDLER2t6U4XneZleVtUEULMlT NFPxGYZDqL7h9V4ipvZYqPYOxhs1cCVGgaD68ZM6EJfQKO+Ryzl3tGIBMyhqgWgpPQo7 fnp63y/oLeRNghDsDZBn1xb3LNh8gajhT7KIZw3k7zDHtuUb4zqk0nbW0b/iU0Um7LRl 4hsg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVFfLkUEDupLNOrJptFw76SvVdNG1vjf/tfN28jbSCxh/YIdx83 WrKYoML0IxLbn7zxAeMQomTVkJ5X
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx5lO1I5TJs0WoJLD6XtJKtvlz8iE6yyqNedAGyaas02pks28QmD3FLBISYwzGhyY6yQ4MKVg==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:6496:: with SMTP id e22mr19571pgv.249.1556743192750; Wed, 01 May 2019 13:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] ([118.148.72.205]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 144sm7802273pfy.49.2019.05.01.13.39.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 May 2019 13:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: anima-chairs@ietf.org, anima@ietf.org
References: <155674110957.1005.941357960327662977.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d30a27d7-165f-f06b-2472-30eb5dced1d6@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 May 2019 08:39:47 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <155674110957.1005.941357960327662977.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/anima/euS8vLonVfy5VSlh02X9_18_C5E>
Subject: Re: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-anima-01-05: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: anima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Autonomic Networking Integrated Model and Approach <anima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/anima/>
List-Post: <mailto:anima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>, <mailto:anima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 May 2019 20:39:56 -0000

Hi Alissa,

On 02-May-19 08:05, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote:
...
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> BLOCK:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (1) "Acceptance of work items by the WG will be scheduled/throttled so that
> contributors can target them to enter WG last call after not more than a number
> of IETF meeting cycles agreed by the AD."
> 
> I don't understand the implications of this. What happens if the adopted work
> items have not entered WGLC after the agreed number of cycles? If the answer is
> anything other than "the WG abandons the work," I don't understand how this is
> a throttling mechanism. A throttling mechanism would need an explicit limit on
> the number of adopted work items at any one time, I think.

I agree that the text is a bit illogical. In a sense it's unnecessary, because
every WG should be matching its workload to its capacity. Maybe that's all
we should say, rather than trying to describe a slightly vague algorithm?

> (2) The proposed work items is a very large and somewhat unbounded list of
> items, whereas the purpose of writing a charter is to scope the work of the WG
> and hopefully set out a realistic work plan that will be accompanied by
> deployment. For a WG that has produced 5 documents in the last 5 years, I think
> the charter needs to more narrowly focus on the most highly prioritized work
> items. Once those are nearing completion, it seems as though evaluation of what
> is needed next based on deployment experience would then dictate the next set
> of items for another re-charter.

I think the point here is that now that the relatively small number of
infrastructure documents are almost finished, the next stage opens up
the possibilities for a much wider range of work that builds on the
infrastructure. The priorities aren't even obvious. So this goes with
the previous point, and to quite some extent the criteria will be
whether the WG has capacity more than which topic has priority.

That's why there's a bucket list of work items and a short list of
immediate milestones.

Would this help?

s/Proposed work items include.../Possible work items include.../

> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> It would be good to see milestones with dates before this gets approved.
> 
> I think this charter would benefit from an English edit pass before going out for external review.

I'll volunteer, when the open issues have been resolved.

> What is "compounding environment"?

An excellent question.

    Brian