[Ideas] IDEAS Chartering Result

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 12 October 2017 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ideas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3825134575 for <ideas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QH42AkrCHH-C for <ideas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22d.google.com (mail-qt0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5456A134571 for <ideas@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id f8so15497700qta.5 for <ideas@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :mime-version; bh=JPrhfoJ1NGE0ooXVgBNnqy6h+udr2jBZ/bOKOEOVNvo=; b=HE/IEs1JpcpjQ7zHaGLY9/o+LYCAf0GubEw079fsrdWIBVjtZdF1tM/zkdZptcxJBl xaFPn5dZBBMVEnsd+ccDNjcy/ll/O3CW+Fwk3pGL0T3QVhs3bXtw1514fQNvGNNDDxAy djabNST2fGJdgd9XkNCiVe7cMn4AG5s1crrp51sELbm1XQIqBdN2eJ0jjVx2a6k1x1yR dgrld8WNPpE63dG2m7ak1NUApFdGHCqji8YOpOUtMzJggKVD2v6rF6NbCT25HrGb3Oum iSx8Bgg6DvOgqvwSFkDUgjuYbLS+PIGn8nek6mSOfvUjtlaN9DOWE/bxgJmhSHQ1BrKI 1HJw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id :thread-topic:mime-version; bh=JPrhfoJ1NGE0ooXVgBNnqy6h+udr2jBZ/bOKOEOVNvo=; b=r/FU+wIfi8HmxxKSJ9+79OO4qkHGw+ZVDLDz7RIdht3MlKIGWlyq+PWJXypXGRw8xp LT6PGwhN3VOQbD4Rcr5fKia26dGRKBtzBF18W3surYUbrpmuD1aUpmGa6HwJ6+tOhqAa exUYlWvPnzFm6FFp0EqjAwBWlqN/BKANFI70V46TcrecO9O3eot9h0XcCzJbhKqzFSf8 KoXwnIDBHvdWk4Y3agRIxGwz+Lpl5n1aWS44kTuS4PUxmEhYsVFBfyCH6PwFlzyyqAhZ knnADRaROv1Nwqpfj4KCw/yJME5E8fWscJ/D7028D9Zh2lF8XSYeV/GrB+fOESLxNz07 voJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaUvrFHHxnSAwoBxXWNW+ghdM2vdUhLZCudy/fNICH0AJ34246Iv EHIgjiiq0/5VeccTY8Sql/AuCA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+RDUN3PWMQtLd+HdHkoLXhwePAgaunINr/XScNU8m6bg0yh6QiFJbKQggiR5H4N0AJ8JQGNUQ==
X-Received: by 10.37.173.67 with SMTP id l3mr331697ybe.249.1507834966014; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.144] (cpe-65-190-24-92.nc.res.rr.com. [65.190.24.92]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f200sm7327138ywb.23.2017.10.12.12.02.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:02:45 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.27.0.171010
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 15:02:44 -0400
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
To: <ideas@ietf.org>
CC: Deborah Brungard <db3546@att.com>
Message-ID: <0B355082-BEEB-48E4-A1EC-E7D8AC0A9E6F@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: IDEAS Chartering Result
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3590665365_681494175"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ideas/g3jtnfUm03UoNd_GF_CAkZSlsg4>
Subject: [Ideas] IDEAS Chartering Result
X-BeenThere: ideas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussions relating to the development, clarification, and implementation of control-plane infrastructures and functionalities in ID enabled networks." <ideas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ideas/>
List-Post: <mailto:ideas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ideas>, <mailto:ideas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:02:51 -0000

Dear IDEAS list:

 

First of all, I want to thank everyone who has participated in the discussion of the proposed charter over the last couple of weeks, as well as everyone who has invested time in the development of related documents.

 

Today, in our Formal Telechat, the IESG reached consensus to not approve the proposed charter [1].  The discussion during the External Review period had a significant effect on the decision.  To be clear, this decision doesn’t close the door to any IDEAS-related work in the future.

 

I want to encourage everyone to continue the work, even if informally.  Part of the discussion during today’s call was about the possibility of holding a BoF at IETF 100 to focus on the privacy aspects.  I advocated against it because I think that the time is too short to organize and achieve a fruitful discussion.  Instead, I suggest side meetings and informal conversations to move the common understanding forward.

 

WG Chartering doesn’t have to be done during the “IETF cycle”, the IESG doesn’t have to wait until right before IETF 101 to consider a revised charter.  The process can be run at any point and a WG can have interim (virtual or physical) meetings any time.  Please keep that in mind as you move forward.

 

 

One of the issues mentioned during the External Review (and pointed out to me in private, by a couple of different people) had to do with the affiliation of most of the people advocating for the WG and offering clarifications.  Due to my recent change in affiliation [2], that group now includes me.  While I have only worked at me new employer for 4 days (including today!), I decided to not continue as sponsoring AD for this effort.  I don’t doubt anyone’s integrity or intention, but I think it is important to eliminate any appearance of being partial – the effectiveness of the IESG depends on the impartiality of its members!

 

Deborah Brungard, who, among other things, is the Responsible AD for the lisp WG, has volunteered to be the point of contact for the IESG.  As this effort moves forward and if a new charter wants to be put out for IESG consideration, please get in touch with Deborah.

 

Thanks!

 

Alvaro.

 

 

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ideas/ballot/ 

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/routing-discussion/QNH1Le1mqbFAHmoAwt0jQ-YsPuk