Re: [ippm] Consensus on draft adoption as WG items

[Matt Mathis <[e-mail]>]

The agility of updating milestones is sensitive to the clarity of the
charter: changes that are clearly in scope don't require (significantly)
wider discussion.  If the scope is vague, or the item a stretch, others (WG
chairs defending their turf and/or the IESG) have to be involved in a
conversation....

A IESG approved, clear, up to date charter with placeholders for future
projects makes milestone adjustments easy.

Thanks,
--MM--
The best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay

Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in defiance of unjust governments.   We treat privacy and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they are.


On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:41 AM, marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was not aware of the model, im my previous experience milestone updating
> is not so agile, but if this is how plan to run the wg, i am fine with
> yoour approach and i agree we can wait.
>
> Regards, marcelo
>
>
> El 08/04/13 12:49, Brian Trammell escribió:
>
>  Hi, Marcelo,
>>
>> Now that we have agreed charter text which will covers all the work we
>> want to do now and that we think we will want to do over the next few years
>> (the hard part), the intention is that we can quickly update milestones,
>> with much less work, coincident with document adoptions as WG items. I
>> suspect we could evaluate subsequent revisions of drafts fitting the
>> charter text and update the milestones as often as once per meeting cycle,
>> if the the individual and WG drafts progress quickly enough. Given that
>> model, I'm not sure I see what the value is in placing a milestone on this
>> charter without a document ready to cover it.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 8 Apr 2013, at 22:18, marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> I agree with most of this.
>>> One comment about the metric registry work. I agree that the draft need
>>> more discussion and the WG is not ready for adopting it.
>>>
>>> But wouldnt make sense to include a milestone about this in the charter
>>> even if we dont adopt a document at this stage?
>>>
>>> Thanks, marcelo
>>>
>>>
>>> El 08/04/13 11:29, Brian Trammell escribió:
>>>
>>>> Greetings, all,
>>>>
>>>> Given the response to the consensus call for document adoption, here's
>>>> where we see consensus on the next milestones for the IPPM working group:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (1) draft-morton-ippm-2330-update-**01
>>>> Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2330bis (Framework update)
>>>>           to IESG as Proposed Standard
>>>>
>>>> Clear support for adoption, with pledges for reviews and contributions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (2) draft-morton-ippm-2679-bis-01
>>>> Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2679bis (One-Way Delay update)
>>>>           to IESG as Proposed Standard
>>>>
>>>> Mixed support for adoption, with at least one pledge for review and
>>>> contribution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (3) draft-morton-ippm-2680-bis-00
>>>> Mon Year - Submit draft of RFC 2680bis (One-Way Loss update)
>>>>           to IESG as Proposed Standard
>>>>
>>>> Mixed support for adoption, with at least one pledge for review and
>>>> contribution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (4) draft-morton-ippm-lmap-path-01
>>>> Mon Year - Submit draft on reference path for measurement location
>>>>           to IESG as Proposed Standard
>>>>
>>>> Clear support for adoption, with pledges for reviews and contributions,
>>>> and a
>>>> suggestion that the WG may consider folding this into -2330-update.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (5) draft-mathis-ippm-model-based-**metrics-01
>>>> Mon Year - Submit draft on model-based TCP bulk transfer capacity
>>>> metrics
>>>>           to IESG as Experimental
>>>>
>>>> Clear support for adoption (with correction of intended status to
>>>> Experimental), with pledges for reviews and contributions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (6) draft-ko-ippm-streaming-**performance-00
>>>> Mon Year - Submit draft on model-based streaming performance metrics
>>>>           to IESG as Informational
>>>>
>>>> Mixed support for adoption, with correction of intended status and
>>>> indication that the document needs to mature a bit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (7) draft-bi-ippm-ipsec-01
>>>> Mon Year - Submit draft on OWAMP / TWAMP Security to IESG as Proposed
>>>> Standard
>>>>
>>>> Clear support for adoption, with indication that the document needs
>>>> some work
>>>> within the WG.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (8) draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-**registry-00, draft-bagnulo-ippm-new-**
>>>> registry-independent-00
>>>> Mon Year - Submit draft on metrics registry to IESG as Proposed Standard
>>>>
>>>> Mixed support for adoption, with indication that the document should be
>>>> discussed and developed further before adoption.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given this, we propose that we adopt the following drafts as the next
>>>> set of milestones:
>>>>
>>>> draft-morton-ippm-2330-update
>>>> draft-morton-ippm-lmap-path
>>>> draft-mathis-ippm-model-based-**metrics
>>>> draft-bi-ippm-ipsec
>>>>
>>>> Given that draft-morton-ippm-2679-bis and draft-morton-ippm-2680-bis
>>>> may depend on 2330-update, they should be developed in parallel with it,
>>>> and considered for adoption as it nears completion.
>>>>
>>>> The remaining drafts are all clearly in scope for the new charter, so
>>>> please continue developing them, with discussion on the list as necessary.
>>>> Specifically, the new registry drafts should be unified into a single
>>>> approach, and adopted following further development.
>>>>
>>>> After consulting with the authors, we suggest the following milestones
>>>> for existing WG drafts:
>>>>
>>>> Jul 2013 - Submit draft on RFC 2680 standards-track advancement testing
>>>> to IESG as Informational
>>>> Dec 2013 - Submit draft on access rate measurement protocol problem
>>>> statement to IESG as Informational
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest the following milestones for the new drafts; authors,
>>>> please respond if these are not realistic:
>>>>
>>>> Dec 2013 - Submit draft updating the IPPM Framework (2330-update) to
>>>> IESG as Proposed Standard
>>>> Dec 2013 - Submit draft on reference path for measurement location to
>>>> IESG as Proposed Standard
>>>> Mar 2014 - Submit draft on model-based TCP bulk transfer capacity
>>>> metrics to IESG as Experimental
>>>> Mar 2014 - Submit draft on OWAMP / TWAMP Security to IESG as Proposed
>>>> Standard
>>>>
>>>> Please be prompt with any comments on this proposal; we'd like to hand
>>>> the proposed charter and milestones up to our AD this week.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Brian and Bill
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> ippm mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ippm<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>
>>>>
>>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>>> ippm mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ippm<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>
>>>
>>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> ippm mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ippm<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>
>