Re: [Iotops] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-iotops-00-09: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 21 January 2021 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: iotops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6153A1250; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:07:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Su14YLnek1_U; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:06:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D5353A1264; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 08:06:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F81F38B5C; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:08:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id JRsxdFMLInNG; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:08:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F2C338B5B; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:08:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99BB34AB; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:06:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
cc: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>, iotops-chairs@ietf.org, iotops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <161123720749.26475.15346633681665853684@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <161123720749.26475.15346633681665853684@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:06:40 -0500
Message-ID: <3992.1611245200@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/Lb7U08XizJ1uIG-CvuBXRX02XLc>
Subject: Re: [Iotops] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-iotops-00-09: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: iotops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:07:00 -0000

Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    > IOTOPS will solicit input on IoT-device-related operational issues and
    > practices, and existing and proposed technologies related to the
    > deployment, operational management, and lifecycle management of IoT
    > devices.  IOTOPS provides a venue for IoT experts and other interested
    > parties to engage in discussions of IoT requirements of networking
    > standards, as well as proposals for new uses of IP technology in IoT
    > specific scenarios."

    > Comparing this to the numbered list of work areas at the end of the
    > charter, it seems that the objective is to be much more focused than
    > the text above implies. I would suggest some edits to the text above,
    > condensing down to one paragraph:

yes, hardly surprising since many points below were removed :-)

    > Is the list of WGs supposed to be limited or exhaustive? In addition to
    > the missing ones others have pointed out there is TEEP.

Not exhaustive, maybe prefix with e.g.

    > OLD Revision, updates, and extensions related to existing WGs will be
    > done in those WGs.

    > NEW Revision, updates, and extensions related to work in existing WGs
    > will be done in those WGs.

I don't object, but I don't hold the pen.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide