Re: [core] CoRE rechartering: proposed text

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 17. Oct 2021, at 02:14, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I commented on the individual proposals in the GitHub repo, but I’m
>> really surprised at how bad most of them would be for getting any
>> useful work done.
> 
> There is a lot of useful work in CORE's charter which is not getting done.

Making it harder to do that work is not going to help with this.

I understand that the progress of CORECONF is frustrating.
But that is no reason to shut down other work that is proceeding at a reasonable pace.
It’s not like the OSCORE people will suddenly put time into the latest YANG problem if they can’t work on group communication any more.

>> Whether some work should be in a specific WG does not depend on some
>> abstract academic concept of how the world is structured, but on having
>> the people assembled who can do good work.  E.g., I’m having a hard
>> time believing that any useful work on using CoAP with DTLS would
>> happen in the TLS WG;
> 
> I probably have even more wounds on this than you.
> But, we won't get it done here.  Let's not say we are going to try.

A charter is meant to provide a frame for the WG to work in.
If nobody wants to move this forward, it won’t happen if we move it to a WG that isn’t interested.
(I don’t have any particular wounds with the TLS WG because I wouldn’t even try to do work there that is related to CoRE.
We did manage to pull off a DICE WG in 2013 to get RFC 7925; but that was a non-trivial effort; not sure we have anything at that level on our plates right now.)

>> the people there have quite different priorities.
>> SenML may not be useful to you, but it is out there in actual use and
>> we have done and are doing occasional maintenance (RFC 8798,
> 
> It's because I think it's useful that I think it deserves its own place.

That wouldn’t make a lot of sense, because the maintenance needed for SenML is really limited.
(The current wording about “completing” SenML may give the wrong impression.)

> When a WG has so many focuses it has no focuses.  I point to OPSAWG.

I think we have a laser-sharp focus compared to OPSAWG…
(I also think we have a relatively well-working WG going on, in particular since I stopped being involved in its management :-)

> I think that we all agree that the existing charter would never get approved today.
> That's why rechartering is scary.

If that is the diagnostic, we probably shouldn’t spend time trying to do it.

Grüße, Carsten