Re: [Mops] Adam Roach's No Objection on charter-ietf-mops-00-01: (with COMMENT)

["Leslie Daigle" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks — some followup, in-line.

On 16 Oct 2019, at 2:54, Adam Roach via Datatracker wrote:

> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-mops-00-01: 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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mops/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm balloting "No Objection," but I have some pretty substantial
> comments that I'd like to see given serious consideration before
> we send the charter out for further review.
>
>> 2/ Solicit input from network operators and users to identify 
>> operational
>> issues with media delivery in and across networks, and determine 
>> solutions or
>> workarounds to those issues.
>
> I'd like to request some clarity about the anticipated output relics 
> of those
> determinations.  Are these to be mailing list discussions exclusively? 
> Will
> there be RFCs produced? If not, is there a plan to publish the 
> conclusions in
> a more discoverable location than the MOPS mailing list?


That’s an interesting question, and I think there are, indeed, some 
implicit assumptions in this text.

Let me preface the rest of my answer with:  MOPS can’t be just about 
people talking among themselves.  So, the right question in every case 
is going to be:  if this is useful information, how can we make it 
available to (others) who need to know it, now or in the future.

For this particular point, my first thought is that there will be 
presentations at MOPS meetings, and thus there will be proceedings 
materials.  And, if there is particular interest in the items that are 
identified, the people presenting will either be vectored to the WG(s) 
that need to hear about the issues, or a WG document would seem like a 
logical follow up to flesh out any identified issues.


>
> This same comment applies across bullet points 2 through 5, and I 
> think it

Here is 3/:
3/ Solicit discussion and documentation of the issues and opportunities 
in
media acquisition and delivery, and of the resulting protocols and 
technologies
developed outside the IETF.

Same answer as for “2/“ — mailing list contribution -> meeting 
presentation (proceedings) -> redirect to other WG, or document more 
fully in I-D/RFC

And 4/:
4/ Document operational requirements for media acquisition and delivery.

Ditto

And 5/:
5/ Develop operational information to aid in operation of media 
technologies in
the global Internet.

Ditto.

> needs to be treated on a bullet-by-bullet basis. In particular, some 
> of these
> enumerated goals (e.g., the first clause of item 3) sound like they 
> intend to
> produce the kind of support documents discussed at
> <https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/support-documents/>.
> I'd like to make sure the charter is clear about whether this working 
> group
> expects to request publication of such support documents as part of 
> its
> chartered work.

I’m a little unclear why this has to be decided up front.  ISTM that 
some items will be more ephemeral than others, and saying either “we 
will never publish” (which could bury information useful to others) or 
“we will always request publication” (which could yield a lot of 
make-work) seems premature.

>
>> 4/ Document operational requirements for media acquisition and 
>> delivery.
>
> The term "acquisition" seems ambiguous here. A simple reading of this
> would imply the process whereby one acquires media from its canonical
> source (e.g., rights holders); but my previous experience with the
> discussions that led to this charter give me the impression that this 
> likely
> has more to do with physical recording devices, like videocameras. The 
> charter
> should be clear about which of these senses of "acquisition" is meant.

It is the latter.  “Technical media acquisition”? “Non-legal media 
acquisition”?

>
>> Media operational and deployment issues with specific protocols or 
>> technologies
>> (such as Applications, Transport Protocols, Routing Protocols, DNS or 
>> Sub-IP
>> Protocols) are the primary responsibility of the groups or areas 
>> responsible
>> for those protocols or technologies.
>
> The use of the word "primary" here is a bit worrisome, as it carries 
> with it
> an implication that MOPS may serve as a secondary custodian of them. 
> I'm
> sure that's not what's intended. I worry that this phrasing could be 
> used
> somewhere down the road in an attempt to defend the undertaking of 
> work
> that really should be done in a more appropriate area. I would suggest 
> a
> revision along the lines of:
>
> "Media operational and deployment issues with specific protocols or 
> technologies
> (such as Applications, Transport Protocols, Routing Protocols, DNS or 
> Sub-IP
> Protocols) remain the responsibility of the groups or areas 
> responsible
> for those protocols or technologies."

That’s better, thanks.

>
>> There must be a continuing expression of interest for the Working 
>> Group to work
>> on a particular work item. If there is no longer sufficient interest 
>> in the
>> Working Group in a work item, the item may be removed from the list 
>> of Working
>> Group items.
>
> Some mention of the mechanics of how this continuing interest will be 
> determined
> would be welcome.

This was a paragraph Éric asked us to import from another WG’s 
charter, so I’d be happy to have his guidance on how that should be 
handled.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises
[e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------------