Re: [nmrg] [Supa] New SUPA charter

[Kostas Pentikousis <[e-mail]>]

Hi Georgios,

I second Parviz, it’s much better after the recent revisions. A few comments wrt to the version at https://github.com/liushucheng/SUPA/wiki/SUPA-Charter

Do we need this phrase: "to shift the balance [of costs?] in their favor"? SUPA should not be a zero-sum game. Everyone should benefit (vendors, operators, admins, users, new service providers).

Do we REALLY have to capitalize POLICY, UNIFIED, SHARED, and AUTOMATICALLY? :)

The paragraph starting with "Some IETF working groups..." may be useful to motivate chartering the WG, but I'm not sure it should be part of the final charter.

Finally, the last paragraphs starting with "SUPA will work on defining... " and ending with the section on Work Items has a bit of overlap with the remaining text (Work Items, Deliverables). I have a few more editorial comments (e.g. s/started work relating/started work related), but we can handle that offline.

Best regards,

Kostas

PS: I took the liberty to CC NMRG as some folks in that group may have an interest in this line of work.

| Von: Parviz Yegani [mailto:[e-mail]] 
| Gesendet: Samstag, 27. September 2014 06:07
| An: Georgios Karagiannis
| Cc: [e-mail]
| Betreff: Re: [Supa] New SUPA charter
|
| Great job Georgios. The charter is well written and nicely structured. The notion of "network boxes", however, 
| is a bit confusing. I'd rather to replace it with "network nodes" or "network components". I also have
| some other minor editorial comments. I will send it in a separate email. It's good that you mentioned the
| SUPA WG (once formed) will collaborate with other relevant groups within IETF (NETCONF, Yang doctors, ..)
| to ensure consistency and avoid divergence or perhaps any possible duplication of work.

| Thanks,
| Parviz