Re: [Netmo] John Scudder's No Objection on charter-ietf-nmop-00-00: (with COMMENT)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,

Thanks for the feedback - my rational is simply that I can easily imaging that this WG may well be suitable to do small bits of protocol work (such to the constraints), but I don't know exactly what they are now.  Once the WG gets going, I will push the operators to help agree what it their topic priorities issues to focus on.  So, really I'm trying to put a stake in the ground now to say that is allowed rather than a future IESG claiming that, no, the WG was only ever chartered/intended as an Informational/BCP only WG.  So, perhaps it is just forward guidance?

To give some examples of the potential topics that the WG may focus on are:

> (1) YANG Telemetry/Kafka integration
 - The protocol updates for this is already happening in NETCONF and OPSAWG

> (2) Issues related to mapping configuration, and agreement on north bound
> interfaces from the device (protocol and model families)
 - I don't know what will come out of this.

> (3) Anomaly detection and Incident management
 - This could involve defining small models for defining incidents - once we know the size of the work, it may become more clear if that should happen here or in a dedicated WG.

> (4) Issues related to deployment/usage of YANG topology modules (e.g.,
> digital map)
- This is likely to involve wanting to update the YANG topology RFC (that was standardized in I2RS), but this might be a reasonable home for that update (in RTG ADs agree).

> (5) Controller architectures for management of pluggable optics (there are
> several drafts currently in CCAMP)
- This is an architecture/framework doc rather than protocol work.

> (6) An update of operator requirements on Network Mgmt
> protocols/modelling within the IETF.  E.g., something like RFC 3535-bis.
- I see that Med has already started formulating a draft on this :-)

> (7) Handling capabilities.
- I'm not sure exactly where this should go.  I think that this idea needs a place to incubate and then figure out whether it goes to NETMOD or a new WG.

I think that some of these could involve protocol work, and I will push the Operators/WG to choose 2 or 3 topics to focus on, hence it is possible in 6 months time the WG may recharter to list some specific protocol/model enhancements (e.g., updating the YANG topology module produced by I2RS maybe).

Does that shed any more light on why I'm somewhat keen to keep that text in?

Regards,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Scudder <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 4:08 PM
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [Netmo] John Scudder's No Objection on charter-ietf-nmop-00-
> 00: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> Yes, that’s a good improvement, thanks. I’m still a little baffled why it needs to
> be there, since as I understand it, the whole thing could be summed up by the
> first clause:
> 
> > The WG charter does not currently include any IETF protocol or data
> > model work
> 
> Or even by no clause at all, since of course, you’re not going to enumerate all
> the things the working group is not chartered to do.
> 
> It goes without saying, or should go without saying, that any work not in
> scope for the current charter, could be in scope for a future recharter. So, I’m
> not entirely sure why you’re saying it! I guess maybe all the sub-bullets are
> way of saying “don’t do protocol work in this working group, take it to these
> other working groups instead“? Kind of a mini-FAQ embedded in the charter?
> 
> Anyway, although I’m puzzled by the choice to go into these details, I don’t
> see it as being a reason to hold up external review.
> 
> —John
> 
> > On Dec 1, 2023, at 10:47 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> >
> > I hope that I have addressed your comments.  The latest version of the
> charter is here:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-
> nmop/00-01/__;!!NEt6yMaO-
> gk!HkOOTRKLEdbTkT_fHYI3T_TzbMBjUhJC6mb_JFUO-nM-
> 298NxtgzLt6wOv_QB5aeoJcN0o8G_7Br$
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Netmo <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of John Scudder via
> >> Datatracker
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 7:55 PM
> >> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: [Netmo] John Scudder's No Objection on charter-ietf-nmop-00-
> 00: (with
> >> COMMENT)
> >>
> >> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> >> charter-ietf-nmop-00-00: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-
> nmop/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!HkOOTRKLEdbTkT_fHYI3T_TzbMBjUhJC6mb_JFUO-
> nM-298NxtgzLt6wOv_QB5aeoJcN0mluyTF2$
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> COMMENT:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> I have a few comments on this section:
> >>
> >> ```
> >> - Implement small protocol enhancements to help facilitate deployment,
> >> subject to the following constraints:
> >>
> >> - Protocol extensions for protocols in scope for existing working
> >> groups must be taken to those working groups unless there is an
> >> agreement by the working group’s responsible area director and the
> >> Operations/Management area director to progress the enhancement
> >> within this working group.
> >>
> >> - More significant protocol work (on existing or new protocols) is
> >> out of scope for this working group and must be done in another
> >> existing or new WG.
> >> ```
> >>
> >> First, I don't think you mean "implement", I think you mean "specify". The
> IETF
> >> and its working groups generally does not do implementation.
> > [Rob Wilton (rwilton)]
> > Fixed (and moved).
> >
> >>
> >> Second, at least in the rendering I looked at, all these bullets appeared at
> >> the same level. My assumption is, bullets two and three in the text I
> quoted
> >> are supposed to be sub-bullets.
> > [Rob Wilton (rwilton)]
> > Effectively fixed by moving the paragraph.  Interestingly it looked fine on
> github ...
> >
> >>
> >> Third and most important, I don't see why this is in the charter at all, given
> >> that the first sub-bullet says that enhancements must be done in their
> home
> >> working groups anyway. If the intent is to say that nmop is a venue for
> doing
> >> enhancement of orphan protocols, that could be said much more clearly.
> > [Rob Wilton (rwilton)]
> >
> > I've now moved that section out of scope and have this section instead:
> >
> > The WG charter does not currently include any IETF protocol or data
> > model work, but the WG may decide to work on such items in future,
> > subject to the following constraints:
> >
> > * Protocol extensions for protocols in scope for existing working groups
> > must be taken to those working groups unless there is an agreement by
> > the area director responsible for the working group and the
> > Operations/Management area director to progress the enhancement within
> > this working group.
> >
> > * OPSAWG remains the default working group to take small maintenance
> > work for orphan network management specifications produced by
> > concluded working groups unless there is particular operator interest
> > and explicit agreement of the Operations/Management area director to
> > progress the work here.
> >
> > * More significant protocol work (on existing or new protocols) should
> > be taken to an existing or new working group. I.e., protocol work is
> > not the core focus of this working group.
> >
> > * The working group charter and milestones must be updated beforehand
> to
> > cover any protocol or data model work to be undertaken here.
> >
> > Hopefully this addresses your comments.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rob
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Netmo mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmo__;
> !!NEt6yMaO-gk!HkOOTRKLEdbTkT_fHYI3T_TzbMBjUhJC6mb_JFUO-nM-
> 298NxtgzLt6wOv_QB5aeoJcN0slx8UrK$