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

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 03 February 2021 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B673A1117; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 12:18:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.402
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z0C1KrF2bjfd; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 12:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 715B93A1116; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 12:18:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p21so1001361lfu.11; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 12:18:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iqR6rmOGDRg8RN4g6cO+g55GU0tDV7l48F0tKSKnJjA=; b=QB55nlZH4MOjP87sSA24j1LcaFcOIhv1hR2r3Jr2IR/Q6VfGyz16XRPWuWC1wlRnuV elf1UnED/f18N5xxGMtSpDQMvRyF+r5XqTXdVtcOvz01ZChwyOkom2EkwrMrb+pBHEtK FmZS9E0VOHaB5bMRndqBYuoukclb+qqIgn2hYqUarXPGo5rTSaK9ORvENMJyhENxFNZx G8ioXxh6ofwvKbDHEJQ03kp9pqZ1DIhXytFDLne66i9WI/X3dv1ie7FJZgSIq+u2zU+a lVngRZZyBD14m6yQS73McoQslll689cqNE4hcfcsWM6KSmii5eaqyj9rHOITR3Fq5KJk 60Pg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533NQt2FDA/FX4QHjQFEEoGRwiR3Is1cEAzkPUBZHUL4aUSe6qOw hd2FWiRP/PJwUAygjEWzcum6aCsmA0f1YOTwrnQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwjHOAxwG3UhTm/4tUs5Rn+XuJCE2q4UTRAPNAoW9ln4N4vtItAdjUeeKxJlYBmSCvXKS/BXHXL/MUHw7hKqwI=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:8186:: with SMTP id c128mr2580361lfd.377.1612383509308; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 12:18:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:18:17 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Eliot Lear <>
Cc: Martin Duke <>,, The IESG <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 20:18:33 -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 can't speak for Martin, and I already have a Yes ballot here.  But
what I would think appropriate would be for the working group to draft
a report to the IESG summarizing what the group has accomplished.  I
don't know whether that should be annual, or just once after the first
year.  I don't know whether it needs to be a WG consensus thing, or
just a report from the WGCs.  But it would probably be useful both as
a checkpoint for this working group and as a demonstration to the IESG
that working groups such as this have value and should be considered
more often.

> 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.

Clearly, if the working group is producing documents, they can be used
to assess the effectiveness of the group in more traditional ways,
sure.  I'm looking at how to show that "think tank" or "discussion"
working groups can be a useful addition to our repertoire.