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

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 03 February 2021 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 236EE3A10AD; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 11:25:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 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_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xuz5QOcxJjTL; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 11:25:38 -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 736153A10AA; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 11:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l12so433153ljc.3; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 11:25:38 -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; bh=sc8HUCARbAM2Zc6JlRxy/pM5nyzDoP+ZoTIfkIP9iXs=; b=ndnXo0AtxWa1vtr5pudfwALGa0u4NMGdxZAAWVn9RNI8L5swXskllB29jTuNZHXKge VOWa3CYMiBH+CfY5m87N4nsLKkmLm1zuQkjQAVTkMlzFfTcGQGq9ECTCl2ZiW5HpNdDU zWefASqyyvMWFa5iswR4jsn5NIDONcUk14/fiyn3S1dNSgiiFzWAZxPw/3QpdMjqRki5 fBIOwWRWoi6EojJ7em5jPmNKXa1tI+N3lc1R9IcSAJS/wcqkPFMrmY5hfs16ny9KHGbX O/auOz6EqaaPZJhebf9qV3I/dP8wNX/hAtKUW9kizai6cW3QVRL0lARE8GtRSOhFPpv/ mjOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533QzF4LdGXCiMDcZC2ZT+XpAvxjmk0C2OjqTRbm2hBuGOJt24AC w+8Q8EI8lZwL/VrPGnrbWkUzB33PhQBGY4PZ084=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxq30XUq+8IX2s++NlhEdZEtNxJTxjuEx3JjG3iqhu5Nbh9epG2iOLv2j8r+2E7sakQn3hM7JFuEJbNXqEOuy0=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7d04:: with SMTP id y4mr2537600ljc.65.1612380336515; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 11:25:36 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 14:25:25 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Martin Duke <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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 19:25:40 -0000

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.


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.