Re: [Iotops] Martin Duke's Block on charter-ietf-iotops-00-17: (with BLOCK)

Eliot Lear <> Wed, 03 February 2021 19:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A2A3A10D7; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 11:42:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.601
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HNsHcr_96phT; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 11:42:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE8703A0B9E; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 11:42:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4968; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1612381359; x=1613590959; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=9mLvMOWUlrpsthsciYOCOcmVYD7Jgq4GLh9Cdlx/Z5g=; b=hxQT//yUFl7Klc2+I8Y1gEIIX5dS+FP+bnc5vkVfzNpC3yryly5M+G2O VMfD1olD6d7a1Mag9V3h6ZI1sTIf5xXwYdc1CII1bTT1AuynA+KsHQ31h bl2nyeKZZIybgON+pRJZMoxixpBTPDn8DLYkx4h6QLYC/AYfmrianKUCB g=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,399,1602547200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="33125830"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 03 Feb 2021 19:42:34 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 113JgXsj005814 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Feb 2021 19:42:34 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_681CE171-6A25-4FAC-9042-0C2B5869EF46"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 20:42:33 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Martin Duke <>,, The IESG <>,
To: Barry Leiba <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Iotops] Martin Duke's Block on charter-ietf-iotops-00-17: (with BLOCK)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IOT Operations <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 19:42:41 -0000


To me this will be difficult.  The problem is that it will work when we don’t see disparate incompatible architectures popping up in different working groups where they don’t even know the other exists.  I am hoping that the result is also that the use cases for some of the items in (1) will be more broadly laid out.  But again, I don’t know how to measure that.

I think having a few architectural documents come out of the group that discuss the landscape of the IETF for IOT wouldn’t kill us.  So changing (4) to include such sorts of documents as informational non-normative descriptions of what we and others have and what we lack would be nice.


> On 3 Feb 2021, at 20:25, Barry Leiba <> wrote:
> I don't know how this happened, but I accidentally sent the following
> to Martin along, rather than to the list:
> --------------------------------
> I look at it the other way: I think we're often being too restrictive,
> and that we should charter *more* working groups of this nature.  I
> really don't understand the objection to it.
> We've tried doing this in different ways, with things like the
> Exploratory Groups experiment, but changes like that aren't well
> understood and don't tend to succeed.  But just putting it into the
> Working Group context with goals that are still clear but less
> concrete seems workable (and is working in MOPS, for example).
> Lars moved in that sort of direction for the IRTF when he chaired it,
> and it worked: go do your work for a year, and if it looks right at
> that point, you're official.  I think that for working groups it's
> better to make the charter official and kill it after a year if it's
> not working, but it amounts to something close to the same thing.
> --------------------------------
> In a resultant exchange with Martin, he noted to me the lack of
> clarity on "if it looks right", and I see the point there.  Maybe we
> can have a few more words about how we can evaluate the success of the
> working group if it does not produce documents under charter scope
> items (3) or (4)?  I could get behind that, if we don't wrap ourselves
> around an axle about it.
> Barry
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 1:46 PM Martin Duke via Datatracker
> <> wrote:
>> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
>> charter-ietf-iotops-00-17: Block
>> 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:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> I hate to do this the second time through, but I'm happy to clear it after the
>> telechat after a brief discussion makes it clear I am very wrong...
>> I recognize that this WG is more focused on discussion and sharing that more
>> standards-directed ones, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with the open-endedness of
>> the charter. While there are bounds on the scope, there are no real success
>> criteria that we can use to evaluate this WG after a certain period of time.
>> Would it be worthwhile to BoF this first to set some basic milestones for this
>> WG? Do we already have these milestones in someone's head, that we can write
>> down?
>> I definitely support formation of a WG with this theme, with a little
>> tightening as described above.
> --
> Iotops mailing list