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

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 03 February 2021 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: iotops@ietf.org
Delivered-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 317643A0C6F; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 10:46:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: iotops-chairs@ietf.org, iotops@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.25.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161237796111.9705.9707026334703340484@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 10:46:01 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/BQh7JeJOk4ShlrYKKJ5xbBnE6fo>
Subject: [Iotops] Martin Duke's Block on charter-ietf-iotops-00-17: (with BLOCK)
X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: IOT Operations <iotops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/iotops/>
List-Post: <mailto:iotops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops>, <mailto:iotops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 18:46:01 -0000

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

 I definitely support formation of a WG with this theme, with a little
 tightening as described above.