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

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Barry

Thank for your review and your valuable comments as always.

You are right that it is not so easy to have a charter for a "standing working group" which is the first (?) attempt by the IETF community to have something resembling to a "special interest group".

On your two specific BLOCKs, I will let the current chairs to rewrite your first concern and indeed adding new work items will require a re-charter in the current state of the IETF. So, let's be clear on it for now (and initiate some works on "special interest groups")

Thank you also for your comments/nits: they will improve the text.

Leslie and Glen, may I suggest to update accordingly the draft charter ? And if the MOPS list agrees with it, then upload it ? (if you do not have the permission, then simply send it to me)

Regards,

-éric

On 03/10/2019, 22:19, "iesg on behalf of Barry Leiba via Datatracker" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    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”.