[Mops] Barry Leiba's Block on charter-ietf-mops-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-mops-00-00: 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-mops/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In general, I'm not terribly happy with how this charter lays out specific work
items (or doesn't).  It's very vague, and then when I look to the milestones I
get more of an understanding.  On the one hand, this is OK, because we want
this to be flexible, as a standing working group.  On the other hand, I would
feel better with being somewhat more specific.  And I realize that this isn't
terribly actionable, so I'm asking that we think about this, and I won't hold
this "block" beyond our doing some reasonable consideration.

I do have two specific blocking comments, both of which should be easy to sort
out:

   The premise of MOPS is that continued development of Internet-using
   technologies should be properly coordinated in order to ensure that the
   existing technologies are well-utilized, and new ones are developed in
   sympathy with the Internet’s core protocols and design.

This sounds like a lot of fuzz without real substance.  Let’s try to tease out
what its really saying and word it more accessibly.  At some level this seems
to be saying that the premise of MOPS is that what the IETF does is good.  I’m
sure there’s more meant here than that, but I don’t understand what.

   Future work items within this scope will be adopted by the Working Group only
   if there is a substantial expression of interest from the community and if
   the work clearly does not fit elsewhere in the IETF.

And only with a re-chartering, yes?  I don’t think we want the working group to
be able to pick up *any* related work it chooses, just because it doesn’t fit
elsewhere, right?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And then there are a number of editorial things:

   MOPS’ focus is on
   identifying areas where existing protocols and/or networks are challenged

I suggest avoiding the issue of how to make a possessive of “MOPS” (I would use
“MOPS’s”) by saying “The focus of MOPS is….”

   MOPS will solicit input on operational issues and practices, existing and
   proposed technologies related to the deployment, engineering, and operation
   of media streaming and manipulation protocols and procedures in the global
   Internet, inter-domain and single domain networking.

Because the second list item has commas in it, you need the main list to use
semicolons.  Otherwise it’s impossible to be sure one has parsed it accurately.

NEW
   MOPS will solicit input on operational issues and practices; existing and
   proposed technologies related to the deployment, engineering, and operation
   of media streaming and manipulation protocols and procedures in the global
   Internet; and inter-domain and single-domain networking.
END

   In this case, media is considered to include

“In this case” seems odd here.  I think you mean, “In the context of this
charter,” or something like that.

   MOPS acts as a clearinghouse to
   identify appropriate venues for further protocol development, where
   necessary.

I’d rather be more direct in how this is worded (adjust as needed):

NEW
   Where new protocols are needed, MOPS will identify appropriate venues for
   their development.
END

Bullet 3 needs a period at the end.  And what “resulting innovations” are we
talking about here?  It sounds like more fuzz, so can we be more specific?

   including global Internet, inter-domain and within-domain operations.

Earlier, you used “single-domain”, and here you use “within-domain”; please be
consistent.

   There must be a continuous expression of interest for the Working Group to
   work on a particular work item.

I think you mean “continuing”.