[Iotops] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-iotops-00-09: (with COMMENT)

Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 20 January 2021 16:17 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 18F2D3A128F; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 08:17:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alvaro Retana 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: 7.24.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161115947751.21755.6306155717554025962@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 08:17:58 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iotops/x0PYjN0p3doecSTbK9EGJ2I6JYA>
Subject: [Iotops] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on charter-ietf-iotops-00-09: (with COMMENT)
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, 20 Jan 2021 16:17:58 -0000

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-iotops-00-09: No Objection

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:


(1) "within (e.g., RFC 8799) limited domains"

While I like rfc8799 a lot, it is not an IETF consensus document.  Making
reference to it in a charter, even as an example, seems problematic to me. 
Taking the reference out should still be clear enough.

   Revision, updates, and extensions related to existing WGs will be done in
   those WGs.  Where new protocols may be needed, IOTOPS will help identify
   candidate venues within IETF for their development.

What about revisions, updates, or extensions to technology related to closed
WG -- or where new protocols are not needed?  I assume the answer is the
same (IOTOPS will help identify...); it would be nice for it to be explicit.

(3) "Discussing issues related to IoT operational security."  It seems to me
that "operational security" could be added as another bullet in item 1 without
any loss in meaning.  Is there a specific reason for it to be called out
separately that is not obvious from the text?

(4) "Publish operational practice and document requirements."  It is not clear
to me whether the expectation is to publish (in an RFC) the requirements or
just document them (in a draft) so they can be passed on to where solutions
will be worked on.


s/The IOTOPS Working Group is for the discussion/The IOTOPS Working Group is
chartered for the discussion

There's a mismatch between "devices that are:" and the bullets:
s/devices that are/devices that
s/networked/are networked

s/extensions related to existing WGs/extensions to technology related to
existing WGs