[Ioam] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on charter-ietf-ioam-00-02: (with COMMENT)

"Deborah Brungard" <db3546@att.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 14:18 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Deborah Brungard <db3546@att.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148725469531.15933.223315168898312900.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 06:18:15 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ioam/FXurWij4rwvxo-ZWuC_qZQyEFVA>
Cc: aretana@cisco.com, ioam@ietf.org, ioam-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [Ioam] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on charter-ietf-ioam-00-02: (with COMMENT)

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ioam-00-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ioam/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Similar to the concerns of others, I think the description of the work
needs better scoping, e.g. Adrian's comment. IETF, and the industry, have
been evaluating a variety of solutions for supporting programmable
networks. All have various tradeoffs, especially in terms of scale.

Currently the charter mixes saying the working group will define the
mechanisms and in other paragraphs says it will be done in the
responsible working group for the encapsulation. I think this needs to be
clearer and, if modifying, I prefer it is done in the responsible working
group as the many previous discussions on in-situ OAM have shown what may
seem a simple solution is not.

[Ioam] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on charter… Deborah Brungard