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

[Adam Roach via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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?

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

> 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.

> 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."

> 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.