Re: Re-chartering for extension work

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike, 

So an important aspect of rechartering is to actually make the rest of the IETF
aware of the changes in what the WG is working on. For a WG that is as high
profile as QUIC the changes in scope do matter well beyond those that will
bother to actively read the mailing list. Therefore a recharter lets these
people to be aware of the changes. 

In addition, from my perspective the WG chairs have the freedom to schedule
discussion of potential future extension in the meetings as well as having
discussion on the mailing list. However adopting them as WG items will require a
recharter. 

A reason for the two step rechartering is that I think we will need to have a
serious discussion of how to work on v2 and extensions more generally. I think
going into these details now is premature. But we will need to come back to this
later. 

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund
TSV AD

On Tue, 2019-12-17 at 17:11 +0000, Mike Bishop wrote:
> I think I would approach this a little differently.  I understand the desire
> for caution about letting extensions derail the core documents, but I'm
> hesitant to require another recharter to adopt more extensions.  Perhaps we
> could consider something more like HTTP/2 did, permitting us to work on
> extensions only to the extent that they don't delay our work on the core
> documents.  Or explicitly list the extensions we're allowed to adopt before
> RFC publication.
> 
> I understand the current plan is for two recharters, and maybe they're
> lightweight enough that that's fine.  I'm just unenthusiastic about having to
> agree on the exact set of extensions we're allowed to discuss before we can
> formally discuss any of them.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: QUIC <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 1:58 AM
> To: Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>; IETF QUIC WG <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Re-chartering for extension work
> 
> 
> 
> > On 12 Dec 2019, at 9:35 am, Jana Iyengar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Mark,
> > 
> > I'm supportive of changing the language in the charter. 
> > 
> > When we wrote the charter, the intent was to preclude work that might have
> > interfered with getting the important work of the core protocol done, and
> > the things we could think of at the time were partial reliability and FEC.
> > That's clearly an incomplete list, as we can see with the extensions that
> > are being proposed.
> > 
> > I am supportive of the new language you propose.
> > 
> > That said, I'd like to tease something out. If I understand this correctly,
> > the charter as it is allows for at least one of the currently proposed
> > extensions to be adopted -- the version negotiation extension. Under the
> > proposed language, we couldn't have adopted this extension since it wouldn't
> > have been on a list of extensions. The rest of the charter talks about focus
> > areas, not about specific documents and extensibility mechanisms. The
> > proposed text lists extensions, which means that any extensions, even minor
> > ones, will require a recharter. This is a tightening of the charter, which I
> > support.
> > 
> > If my understanding is correct, I would hope that we remain open to
> > rechartering as and when the wg agrees on adoption of new extensions.
> 
> That's the intent, yes; while eventually we might open up, we want to be
> deliberate about adding new work items while we're still focused on QUICv1.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> > 
> > - jana
> > 
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:38 PM Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > We've just put out Calls for Adoption for extensions to QUICv1, as we
> > believe that the group has some capacity to discuss them as it finishes work
> > on the core protocol.
> > 
> > However, our charter [1] precludes work on at least some extensions. The
> > specific text in question is:
> > 
> > """
> > Extensions that will support partial reliability, and negotiation and use of
> > Forward Error Correction schemes, are out of scope in this version of the
> > working group charter.
> > """
> > 
> > *If* we do decide we'd like to adopt, we'll need to update it to something
> > like:
> > 
> > """
> > Additionally, the Working Group will deliver [ adopted extensions ]. The
> > Working Group may consider other extension work, but adopting further
> > extensions requires updating this charter.
> > """
> > 
> > Please take a look and discuss any concerns; we'll be asking our ADs for
> > such a modification (with appropriate changes to the list of extensions
> > adopted) once our Calls for Adoption complete.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > 1. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/about/
> > 
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham   
> > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=f85c6569-a4886937-f85c25f2-8691959ed9b7-69b8740865eddccb&q=1&e=7516b3d9-fa19-4a17-ade3-86747f2949d2&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net%2F
> > 
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   
> https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=410fda54-1ddbd60a-410f9acf-8691959ed9b7-8547d07a1f3546f1&q=1&e=7516b3d9-fa19-4a17-ade3-86747f2949d2&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net%2F
> 
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------