Re: [dtn] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-dtn-01-02: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rick,

Also inline...

On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 05:03:19PM +0000, Rick Taylor wrote:
> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> Comments inline...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 02 December 2021 05:27
> > To: The IESG
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-dtn-01-02: (with
> > COMMENT)
> > 
> > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> > charter-ietf-dtn-01-02: No Objection
> > 
> > 
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dtn/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >     This architecture will define a standard model
> >     for the forwarding process of a Bundle Process Agent, providing an
> >     informational reference point for further specifications.
> > 
> > There seems to be some mismatch between "standard model" and
> > "informational reference point".  If it's not intended to be in a
> > standards-track document, perhaps "reference model" would avoid the
> > difficulty?
> 
> +1 - Yes good point, being an English-UK speaker I suffer from additional flowery language that confuses.  How about:
> 
> "This architecture will define a model
> for the forwarding process of a Bundle Process Agent, providing an
> informational reference point for further specifications."

Works for me.

> > 
> >   * The definition of architecture and protocols in the areas of Operations,
> >   Administration and Management (OAM), and Key Management
> > 
> > (nit) I think "an architecture" is needed here.
> 
> +1 - Yes - missing an 'an'
> 
> > 
> >     Additional extensions to the Bundle Protocol, additional Security Context
> >     definitions for BPSec, and new Convergence Layer adaptors will be
> >     considered on a case-by-case basis by the working group.
> > 
> > Can we say anything about what factors will go into these considerations
> > (other than, presumably, WG interest)?  Will the reponsible AD need to
> > be involved in the decision to undertake such work?
> 
> We currently have personal drafts for many of these subjects, and consensus in the WG to work on the topics.  The decision about which drafts will be put forward for adoption will be made by the chairs and AD, taking account of WG workload, authors availability, etc.
> 
> Would adding an extra phrase such as the following help?
> 
>  "... considered on a case-by-case basis by the working group, taking into account the interest and workload of the working group."

It would probably help some, yes.
I'm coming at this from the angle of "the charter is a contract between the
WG and the IESG, and sometimes the community wants us to limit the scope of
what's allowed under the contract".  This phrasing basically says that all
work on BP, BPsec, and CLAs is in scope (but not required to be), which in
all honesty is probably fine and appropriate.  In other contexts and other
WGs the situation can be different and we insist on recharter or AD
approval to take on certain topics.  I don't see any real reason to do that
here, and my question in the ballot position was just an attempt to make
sure that everyone is on the same page.

Thanks,

Ben