Re: [dtn] Alvaro Retana's Block on charter-ietf-dtn-01-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, sent too soon…


As you say, let’s not commit to the future now.  That is why I added the
“may”: even if I hope the work happens, we don’t know that it will.

I rather not paint the bike shed at all (i.e. I prefer it if routing is not
mentioned), but I will happily leave you to pick the color (specific text)
as long as it doesn’t make commitments (implied or otherwise) that we
(IETF) can’t make without knowing what the future holds.  IOW, “may”
doesn’t commit, but stating an intent does.

Alvaro.

On November 3, 2021 at 11:33:25 AM, Alvaro Retana ([e-mail])
wrote:

We seem to be saying the same things: we want the work, if it materializes,
to be done in the IETF — and there must be coordination between dtn and the
routing area — the details on what/where/who/how can be defined when/if the
work exists in the future.  If this is not what you’re saying, please let
me know.  ;-)


As you

On November 3, 2021 at 9:29:35 AM, Rick Taylor (
[e-mail]) wrote:

Hmm.. that ‘may’ implies we might not do it at all, or not do it with RTG.

“The intention is to standardize DTN routing in the future, in
collaboration with the Routing Area.”

But, yes, let’s not commit to the future now.

Rick

From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 03 November 2021 13:23
To: Rick Taylor; Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG
Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Block on charter-ietf-dtn-01-00: (with BLOCK
and COMMENT)

s/…/Routing may be done in the future in collaboration with the Routing
Area.


Thanks!

Alvaro.

On November 3, 2021 at 7:25:52 AM, Rick Taylor (
[e-mail]) wrote:
Hi Alvaro,

Okay that's clear to me.

We feel the need to keep the explicit "No routing" text in the charter to
make it clear to the WG that it's out of scope. How about we add "Routing
will be done under a future charter in collaboration with the Routing Area"
? (That's our intent, so you're right - let's state it).

I'll poke Zahed for the editorial pen.

Cheers,

Rick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alvaro Retana [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 03 November 2021 11:19
> To: Rick Taylor; Zaheduzzaman Sarker
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG
> Subject: RE: Alvaro Retana's Block on charter-ietf-dtn-01-00: (with BLOCK
and
> COMMENT)
>
> On November 3, 2021 at 5:29:53 AM, Rick Taylor wrote:
>
>
> Rick:
>
> Hi!
>
> > I was really hoping that the paragraph after the one you quote would
cover
> > this?
>
> I read that paragraph as saying: we (dtn) are going to work on things
> across areas, and will do our best to work with others.   That is not
> a bad statement for the work that the WG is doing (management, for
> example).
>
> However, it is not what I'm looking for in the routing case.  Not only
> does the text below not talk about redirecting routing work, it is
> specifically about "work items": routing is not a work item, it is
> intentionally excluded.
>
> This takes me back to my original point: if routing is not in the
> charter, then don't mention it in the charter.  If you still want to
> mention it then please be explicit about what should happen to that
> work.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
> > "It is understood that although the DTN Working Group exists in the
> Transport
> > Area, work items of the group span multiple topics related to other
areas.
> > The Working Group will coordinate with other IETF Working Groups,
> especially
> > in the Security, Routing, Operation and Management Areas, to ensure the
> > quality of peer review, the avoidance of duplication of effort, and
> alignment
> > with specifications produced in other Working Groups."