Re: [Iot-directorate] IETF107 prep call agenda thoughts

Hi Michael & directorate,

Here's what we would propose as updated agenda for the call. Starting with the overview set but keeping that very short, then continuing roughly as you suggested.

* Overview of the IETF/IRTF IoT groups (WG/RG chairs; 1-2 minutes per group)
* New/planned IETF/IRTF IoT activities
  - new IoT WGs / RGs
  - relevant BoFs & side meetings
* Updates from other IoT groups
 - OCF
 - OMA SpecWorks
 - W3C
 - OneDM
 - IoTSF
 - Zigbee/PCHIP
 - ETSI/NIST/other gov efforts
 - etc. 
* Outward advocacy/evangelism towards other groups
 - Presentation materials about IETF work
 - Activities
* General/common issues from IoT-directorate document reviews
* AOB

For the WG/RG overview part there's (usually) no need to go to single document level details, but chairs should focus on general direction (e.g., updated charter or major milestones) and issues that are of wider interest and/or require coordination across groups. We want to keep this part short to give sufficient time for the remaining agenda items.

Since the IoT directorate does not have official liaisons with other groups (IAB takes care of that) I called that agenda item "updates from other IoT groups" instead of liaison.

Sounds good?

Cheers,
Ari

> On 27. Feb 2020, at 16.44, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> Absolutely. That would be included into what I was referring to with
>> "highlighting any issues that are of wider interest / require
>> coordination across groups". I was hoping the WG/RG chairs would be up
> 
> Yes, I figured you had this in mind, but I wanted to break us out of the
> inertia of just repeating what we had done before.
> I believe that there was value in the updates, but it is the discussion that
> matters, not the report.
> 
>> Did you have something specific in mind on how we should structure that
>> part of the discussion?
> 
> What I have in mind:
> 1) more explicit liason with/from other IoT groups.
>   * OCF
>   * OCF/Fairhair - (I don't know how integrated it is yet)
>   * IoTSF
>   * Zigbee/CHIP
>   * ETSI,NIST,other governmental efforts
>   * insert yours. Not sure we even have a list.
> 
> 2) outward advocacy/evangelism towards other groups.
>   - part of this was the collection of slides and icons and diagrams on github.
>   - I've pushed lots of things there, but I'm not sure others have been aware.
> 
> 3) general/common issues arising from IoT-DIR reviews of documents.
> 
> 4) discussion about BOFs/WG Chartering efforts that might be ongoing
>   (I'm not aware of any; but that might be ignorance)
> 
> ---
> Some of you may be aware of my push towards some kind of IoT (security)
> lifecycle work.  An emphasis is on the gaps where we either have no
> specification, or where we have too many (XKCD problem).
> 
> 
> Overall, how do we get from current siloed Web-Connected Things, to the
> Inter*NET* of Things that T2TRG/SENML envisions?
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Iot-directorate mailing list
> Iot-directorate@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-directorate