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

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Thu, 21 January 2021 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 5A5783A10FF; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 07:37:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.87
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 nwDD3k_zIduH; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 07:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DABE3A10FE; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 07:37:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07BEA548072; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:36:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 02D7D440163; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:36:56 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:36:56 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, iotops-chairs@ietf.org, iotops@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20210121153656.GA35983@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <161123720749.26475.15346633681665853684@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <161123720749.26475.15346633681665853684@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/b7kIKbk2nEH3np9D15chlwq1Weg>
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 15:37:07 -0000

Alissa, Alvaro, *:

"administrative domain" is IMHO not a good equivalent for "limited domain"
because in general an "administrative domain" could be interpreted as
an Internet administrative domain, and for that a lot of Internet requirements
apply. Such as for example everything related to congestion control.

I thought to remember that before rfc8799 introduced the term
"limited domain" that we referred to these type of networks as
"controlled networks".

But actually, trying to find a reference, i would suggest potentially this here:

RFC8085 - "UDP Usage Guidelines"

Section 3.6:  "Controlled Environments"

just as a suggestion. E.g.: "controlld environments"

(i personally like "controlled" a lot better than "limited".., but matter of opinion)

Cheers
    toerless

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 05:53:28AM -0800, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote:
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-iotops-00-09: 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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-iotops/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> BLOCK:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (1) I agree with Alvaro that the reference to RFC 8799 is not appropriate in
> this charter. Using the well understood "administrative domain" terminology
> would be better.
> 
> (2) The charter contains some contradictory language about its scope. Looking
> at this:
> 
> "The IETF is or has worked on a number of technologies related to IoT. These
> include work done in ANIMA, CBOR, CORE, DRIP, LAKE, LPWAN, LWIG, ROLL, SUIT,
> and 6TISCH.  IOTOPS is intended to be a discussion venue where people can
> discuss how the various technologies developed in these WGs fit together, what
> gaps remain, what has been learnt from deploying these, etc.
> 
> 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:
> 
> The IETF is or has worked on a number of technologies related to IoT. These
> include work done in ANIMA, CBOR, CORE, DRIP, LAKE, LPWAN, LWIG, ROLL, SUIT,
> and 6TISCH. 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 operational IoT requirements, as well as proposals for new
> uses of IP technology related to IoT device and network operations.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> s/The IETF is or has worked on/The IETF works on/
> 
> OLD
> These include work done in ANIMA, CBOR, CORE, DRIP, LAKE, LPWAN, LWIG, ROLL,
> SUIT, and 6TISCH.
> 
> NEW
> This includes work done in ANIMA, CBOR, CORE, DRIP, LAKE, LPWAN, LWIG, ROLL,
> SUIT, 6TISCH, and other working groups.
> 
> Is the list of WGs supposed to be limited or exhaustive? In addition to the
> missing ones others have pointed out there is TEEP.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Iotops mailing list
> Iotops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops