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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> I am under the impression that there is a small ambiguity in the charter, which
> shouldn't be hard to resolve:
>
>    ANIMA work will rely on the framework described in
>    draft-ietf-anima-reference-model. [...] The three areas of the framework are
>    [...] and (3) Intent.
>
>    ANIMA will not work on Intent [...] without explicit rechartering.
>
> The first piece seems to allow for working on Intent while the second clearly
> not (within the current charter).

I tripped over that also when I first read it, but then understood:
the WG will rely on the framework, which includes a set of things.
Not all of those things will be worked on via this charter.  In
particular, "intent" is one of the things that won't be.

As I read it, I think the charter is OK.  I suppose it could be
clarified this way:

OLD
ANIMA work will rely on the framework described in
draft-ietf-anima-reference-model. Work not related to this framework is welcome
for review, but WG adoption of such work requires explicit rechartering. The
three areas of the framework are (1) the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure
(ANI), (2) Autonomic Functions (AF) built from software modules called
Autonomic Service Agents (ASA) and (3) Intent.

NEW
ANIMA work will rely on the framework described in
draft-ietf-anima-reference-model, though only parts of the framework are
in scope for this charter, as detailed below.  Work not related to
this framework
is welcome for review, but WG adoption of such work requires explicit
rechartering.
The three areas of the framework are (1) the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure
(ANI), (2) Autonomic Functions (AF) built from software modules called
Autonomic Service Agents (ASA) and (3) Intent.

END

> I'm not sure to understand what the following means:
>
>    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.

As I read it, it means that the working group won't take on so much
work that the work they do take on doesn't get done.  Acceptance is
based on negotiating a schedule (based on meeting cycles), and if the
schedule isn't met, new work items can't be accepted.

Barry