Re: [Mops] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on charter-ietf-mops-00-03: (with COMMENT)

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

Hi,

Thanks — some thoughts, inline:

On 30 Oct 2019, at 13:06, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker wrote:

> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-mops-00-03: 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Two small editorial comments:
> 1) "Internet- and Internet-protocol-delivered media"
> Not sure I understand the difference here. I would assume that a media 
> that is
> sent over the Internet would also use some Internet-protocol...?

Yeah, this text was the result of us trying to capture the opposite 
case:  when something uses the Internet-Protocol but doesn’t go out 
over the big-I Internet.


>
> 2)"existing protocols and/or networks are challenged by these updated
> requirements." "these" seems to be out of context now.

Could be deleted, indeed.

>
> And two questions:
>
> 1) "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."
> Where/how is the list of Working Group Items maintain? Are we talking 
> here
> about working group documents, or milestones, or something else (in a 
> wiki
> maybe)? And what does removing mean? That it cannot be discussed on 
> the mailing
> list anymore? That is will not get any presentation time? Something 
> else? Not
> sure how easy it will be to enforce these things or what that means in
> practice...

My thinking was along the lines of adopting items as formal working 
group documents (draft-ietf-mops…).  If there is no longer interest, 
the documents can be pursued as individual I-Ds, etc.

For other items — agenda time, etc — I think it will require chair 
discretion as to whether there is continued interest (and that can be 
contested on the mailing list, of course).

Yes, in practice, it’s going to take a bit of work…

>
> 2) The charter only talks about documenting problems. Does that mean 
> any kind
> of BCP-like work is out of scope?

For operations, there is mention of documenting work arounds:
“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.”

But, for most existing technology, BCP work would probably belong in a 
different WG — one focused on that technology.

Leslie.

-- 

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