Re: [Coin] Minutes of the interim meeting and some words from thecochairs

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

Colin,

I think everybody understands that process can be used positively to help or
negatively  to hinder specific activities. It is left up to every IETF participant 
to form their opinions as to whether or how this is happening in any instance.

I explicitly did not make any complaints about how the COIN chairs are running
the RG, i was just observing that the charter is quite inclusive and
maybe more so than what a single RG can grasp. But that is not a bad problem to
deal with, and i certainly understand that the COIN chairs are trying to find
some good interpretations about what is and what is not in scope (as Jeff did
i think speaking for all chairs in his summary).

Of course i am also yealous, because i think routing would also be a great topic
to deserve an RG with such an inclusive charter as "compute", but seemingly i am
in a minority there. Which is still baffling to me given how routing is really
one of the roots of this whole organization. 

I did make very specific observations about how i think programmability aspects
are closely tied to protocol/addressing design and how that makes it hard
and/or not very productive IMHO to try to find a strict separation between the
two. I welcome any technical thoughts you have about that technical contention.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 08:13:54PM +0000, Colin Perkins wrote:
> Toerless,
> 
> The COINRG, like every other IRTF group, has a charter that defines what is, and is not, in scope. The charter was agreed with the IAB when the group was formed, and has been reviewed since. One of the roles of the research group chairs is to interpret that charter, and ensure the group remains on topic.
> 
> If you believe the chairs are interpreting that charter incorrectly, you may appeal to me, as IRTF Chair. If you disagree with my decisions, you may appeal to the IAB.
> 
> Colin
> 
> 
> 
> > On 9 Mar 2022, at 19:42, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 07:32:13PM +0000, Colin Perkins wrote:
> >>> Given Colins ask to the folks like Adrian focussing on semantic addressing to first go to coin, i think any such problems should maybe start using COIN at least as a dispatch, and either the discussion about a specific topic
> >> 
> >> No – that is not correct.
> >> 
> >> What I said to Adrian was that some parts of the semantic routing work fall into the scope of COINRG, some parts overlap with other IRTF groups, and some parts are outside the scope of IRTF or are better suited to other venues. 
> > 
> > Ah, thanks for reminding me. I forgot that you wanted to make any useful discusion
> > around the work we propose even more impossible by asking to go shopping around a variety
> > of existing and non-existing RGs for any individual detail that may not fit a
> > particular groups charter.
> > 
> >> COINRG is not a DISPATCH-style group. Work that does not relate to computation in the network research is out of scope and should be discussed elsewhere.
> >> If the work does not fit within the COINRG charter, it should not be raised here. 
> > 
> > The COIN charter is so broadly written that everything the COIN chairs want to claim
> > to be in charter they can, and likewise anything they don't, they can equally do.
> > 
> > Everything a network forwarding plane does is compute of how to process packets for example.
> > 
> > Cheers
> >    Toerless

-- 
---
[e-mail]