Re: [Banana] Charter

[Margaret Cullen <[e-mail]>]

Oh, I forgot to ask…  Are there any further charter edits that would make you feel better how this work relates to the work in the BBF?

Would it make sense to explicitly state, in the charter, that the BANANA WG will work with the BBF/5G group to ensure that our solutions will not interfere with each other if used on the same networks?  Is there still time to get any wording to that effect added to the charter of the BBF/5G group, as well?

Margaret


> On Sep 22, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Margaret Cullen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
>> On Sep 22, 2017, at 1:23 PM, David Sinicrope <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I am sorry if I have misinterpreted some of your statements in the past, and I will attempt to adjust my input filters in the future to understand that you are making suggestions, rather than trying to lay down rules.  
>> 
>> As far as being willing to help and the “hats” I wear, I believe I have made it clear that I have been participating in my role as the IETF Liaison Manager to the Broadband Forum.  At each BANANA BoF I have attended (all but Yokohama), I have tried to help the work progress by advising that the work scope not overlap with the BBF.    Scoping the work to avoid overlap will provide clearer direction, and in turn avoid debate and lead to faster progression of the work. 
> 
> This sounds like a good path.  Since I am not a member of the BBF or the 3GPP, I am not familiar with what work the BBF currently has chartered in cooperation with 3GPP.  Is there a public charter for that work that I could see, or could you share one with us?  It is easier not to conflict with something, if you actually know what it is.
>> 
>> As for the proposed alternative wording, I appreciate your attempt to accommodate the concerns I raised and avoid the scope overlap I highlighted.  I think the changed text is a marked improvement toward avoiding overlap.  I stand by the suggestions I have made in my previous email, including liaising a draft of the charter, once stable, to the BBF and requesting their input.  
> 
> This was suggested in the BOF, as well, and I think that Suresh said that this sort thing would be considered as part of the IAB/IESG review process — that it isn’t something the BOF group would do, directly.  I will let Suresh correct me if I am wrong about this.
> 
>> I cannot advise what the BBF position would be on a charter they have not seen.  I believe liaising the draft charter would not only provide BANANA with important feedback, but also would be seen as a gesture of goodwill helping foster a cooperative IETF-BBF relationship on this topic.
> 
> Fostering a cooperative relationship is very important both in general, and in this case in particular.  I would support giving the BBF some sort of heads-up about the charter if/when the IESG actually accepts it for consideration, and I would welcome feedback from BBF members.  If there are BBF members who are also active in the IETF, though, I hope they will provide their feedback here, now, and not wait for the BBF to be asked for feedback.
>> 
>> I look forward to finalizing the BANANA charter and a cooperative and productive work relationship between the IETF and BBF on this topic.
> 
> Me, too.  Thank you for your understanding and your help with this.
> 
> Margaret
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Banana mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana