Re: [Din] DINRG side meeting on Wednesday

[Jens Finkhaeuser <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

no additions to anything that's been said, but I do second Rick's second point (pun intended).

The PoA work presented is a great example. It's a general technique for decentralization, and AFAIK they had a bit more resonance in IoT provisioning/onboarding than in our own group. It would be useful for work like this to be pushed out to working groups, as it were, because it's there that they might see adoption and effectively decentralize solutions again.

I'm not sure how much of that we can do in an RG, but it'd be good to see.

Jens


------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, November 9th, 2022 at 22:48, Lixia Zhang <[e-mail]> wrote:


> 

> 

> Hi Rick,
> 

> thanks for your useful input.
> some quick comments below
> 

> 1/ regarding the suggestion of splitting to multiple groups: my view is that DIN RG should serve as the focal point for the decentralization efforts, help collect/organize information and ongoing efforts by the broader community.
> The amount of work is beyond daunting. Nevertheless, we must take a step forward, no matter how long the journey may be.
> 

> 2/ regarding the relation to IETF WGs: all working groups decide their own missions. Similarly, DIN RG decides its own: work with the community to gain a deeper understanding of the problem and solution spaces, and to share our understanding with the community.
> 

> just my own 2 cents,
> Lixia
> 

> > On Nov 9, 2022, at 12:51 AM, Rick van Rein [e-mail] wrote:
> > 

> > Hi Lixia,
> > 

> > > DINRG side meeting is scheduled for 10:30-11:30AM tomorrow, in Room Richmond 6 (indicated in slide 7 of opening slides). It's located on West Wing, first floor.
> > 

> > Thanks. I have something overlapping that I'm afraid. Yesterday
> > I posted something on Zulu that represents my balanced view:
> > 

> > 1. A split into an overview group and technical group could be
> > useful, be it in different RG or in time;
> > 

> > 2. I do feel a need for a place to overview technology that spans
> > multiple IETF WGs, because they have a singular focus and our
> > work clearly taught us that several small changes are needed
> > in several places; we need a place where this overview can be
> > discussed, and turned into a statement towards IETF WGs.
> > 

> > I hope this is useful input for your discussion. Good luck!
> > 

> > > 2022-11-08, 10:32
> > > 

> > > @George @Britta I also noticed the difference between big-picture and tech and a split would manage expectations for the two kinds of meetings. The reason I came to IRTF is in the hope to find a place to discuss the technical big-picture, which still is very technical, but it scatters over many IETF WGs that it is difficult to achieve decentralisation there alone. As in, proposals in an IETF WG touch upon so much more than the WG focus that it is asking a lot to take that all in. At least our work has been looking for a big idea and then wanted to find the smallest possible changes to get it running most everywhere, and that kind of overview can easily get broad and inquisitive, so more IRTF-alike than IETF-alike, even if it is highly technical. (IMHO)
> > 

> > Cheers,
> > -Rick
> 

> 

> _______________________________________________
> Din mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/din