RE: Re-chartering for extension work

["Roni Even (A)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jana,
The loss bit is an example, there are multiple individual drafts in the QUIC document list and I think that naming extensions in the charter is not the right direction.
As for the management, not being a lawyer, the charter text say consider the impact not about addressing the impacts or extending the protocol.

Roni

From: Jana Iyengar [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 6:08 AM
To: Roni Even (A)
Cc: Magnus Westerlund; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Re-chartering for extension work

Roni,

The charter will retain the part that allowed discussion of this work in the working group so far:
"the working group must consider the impact of the protocol on network management practices, reflecting the tensions described in RFC 7258"

Work obviously does not need to be adopted for it to be discussed. It needs to be covered in the charter, which this is.

- jana

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:34 AM Roni Even (A) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Magnus,
I am confused, I was not asking for adoption of the work but to have it in the charter so it can be discussed on the list and worked upon without being contested as non-chartered work. This is at least my understanding about the difference between the charter and adoption

Roni

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 4:49 PM
> To: Roni Even (A); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: Re-chartering for extension work
>
> Hi Igor and Roni,
>
> The three work items being proposed for adoption and recharter are seen as
> highly relevant, constrained, and likely to make good progress and have
> limited
> impact on the v1 work. I think the call for adoption is good indicator of  the
> support for these items.
>
> The Loss bits even if there is significant interest in them I don't expect to
> make rapid progress and likely to require much discussion. Those the
> potential
> for causing impact on the v1 work is significant even if it is not a direct
> dependency. That alone is enough from my perspective to not include this in
> this
> step of adopting things.
>
> It is good that you continue to work on it and progress important aspects, like
> privacy and security considerations.
>
> Hope that clarifies the reasoning.
>
> Cheers
>
> Magnus
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 16:14 +0000, Lubashev, Igor wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > Speaking of lossbits, the work has been discussed at several meetings and
> > there was a significant show of willingness of work on lossbits at the mic
> > line in Singapore, on the condition that the work is (a) a negotiated
> > extension, (b) the use of the bits is strictly specified, and (c) it is not
> > blocking for QUIC v1.
> >
> > We were planning to present the draft of lossbits as a negotiated extension
> in
> > Zurich, but given that the time for the inclusion in the Charter is now, we
> > can get the draft out next week.  Given the prior discussion and expressed
> > willingness of at least a part of the WG to work on this, would you include
> > that extension draft in the WG adoption call prior to the charter update?
> (As
> > usual, adoption != publication, which is subject to the deliberations of the
> > WG, including a positive privacy/security analysis.)
> >
> > - Igor
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 4:52 AM, Roni Even (A)
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > This clarifies the proposed charter and the priority of the V1 document
> but
> > > as for future extensions the text from the meeting notes says
> > >
> > > "Mnot: If you do think you have an extension which is generic enough,
> we
> > > will reserve time for it during the quiet for disucssion on the list. For
> > > this, we
> > > will need a charter change for that, but we've been talking to the ADs
> about
> > > that, and we'll put a proposal out for comment."
> > >
> > > How is this reflected in the charter, which extensions will be considered
> > > "generic enough" and appear by name in it. There are three extensions
> for
> > > adoption and they look generic enough more (version negotiation,
> > > datagrams)   or less (LBs), so why not lossbit, for example or any other
> > > from
> > > the related I-Ds that are "generic enough". The problem in my view is
> that
> > > if
> > > all these drafts are not in the proposed charter, they cannot be discussed
> > > at
> > > all during the "quiet" .  I would prefer to allow in the charter and decide
> > > if to
> > > create a milestone.
> > >
> > > Roni
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 11:08 AM
> > > > To: Roni Even (A); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > > Subject: Re: Re-chartering for extension work
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I want to give my input as AD into this process. We are intentionally
> > > > keeping this rechartering very narrow in scope and do not intended to
> > > > open up for general extension adoption in the WG at this moment. The
> > > > extensions currently on call for adoption is selected set which
> > > > appears important, tractable and with clear scope. However, the
> > > > primary focus will remain on finishing the core specification of
> > > > version 1 of QUIC. The chairs have my full confidence in managing the
> > > > process and are communicating with us ADs regularly.
> > > >
> > > > As Mark stated before discussion of future extensions can occurr if
> > > > time permits, we will also consider other ways of enabling the
> > > > discussion like a QUIC dispatch session. However, as v1 finish we will
> > > > take a new look at the QUIC WG charter and do a more thourgh
> recharter
> > > > at that stage. That discussion will then happen in the context of the
> > > > discussion that will have occurred between now and then. However,
> > > > starting v2, how to handle both bigger and smaller extensions to the
> > > > protocol and any additional guidance documents needed will clearly
> > > > need changes to the charter.
> > > >
> > > > I hope that clarifies the road forward.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > Magnus Westerlund
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 07:41 +0000, Roni Even (A) wrote:
> > > > > Hi Mark,
> > > > > I know that it was discussed in tsvarea session. I noticed that are
> > > > > currently
> > > > > 19 individual drafts in QUIC. I am not sure that all of them should
> > > > > be
> > > >
> > > > adopted
> > > > > as chartered work in QUIC. My view is that the WG should at least
> > > > > say so
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > > > propose to the authors to take it to a named WG ( probably need
> > > >
> > > > recommendation
> > > > > from the Ads) instead of keeping them alive in the QUIC as related
> IDs.
> > > > > Currently the authors can ask to add these documents to the charter
> > > > > based
> > > >
> > > > on
> > > > > the proposed charter change
> > > > >
> > > > > " The Working Group may consider other extension work, but
> adopting
> > > >
> > > > further
> > > > > extensions requires updating this charter."
> > > > >
> > > > > This is like a new call for adoption process, instead for asking for
> > > > > adoption the question will be call for re-charter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Roni
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 9:15 AM
> > > > > > To: Roni Even (A)
> > > > > > Cc: IETF QUIC WG; Lars Eggert
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Re-chartering for extension work
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12 Dec 2019, at 6:13 pm, Roni Even (A)
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > HI Mark,
> > > > > > > I looked at your response to Jana, I do not have a better text
> > > > > > > suggestion
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but I think that adding specific extensions can be discussed by
> > > > > > asking the WG to create a new milestone. Yet I understand that the
> > > > > > charter should be
> > > >
> > > > clear
> > > > > > about what is in scope for the WG. I think that maybe the charter
> > > > > > should also say that the WG can direct proposal for new work to
> > > > > > another WG (sort of dispatch for QUIC).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's been discussed (at the Transport Area meeting in
> > > > > > Singapore); we might try an experiment where we do something
> like
> > > > > > that in Vancouver,
> > > >
> > > > but
> > > > > > it's not clear that *this* WG should be the locus of
> > > > > > quic-dispatchy things quite yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > One other thing, I think that when asking for adoption of a
> > > > > > > document
> > > >
> > > > you
> > > > > >
> > > > > > are asking to create a milestone and adopt the document as the
> > > > > > initial document to address the milestone.
> > > > > > > Sorry for sounding like someone whose focus is on the process
> > > > > > > and not
> > > >
> > > > the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > content.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Roni
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 9:00 AM
> > > > > > > > To: Roni Even (A)
> > > > > > > > Cc: IETF QUIC WG; Lars Eggert
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Re-chartering for extension work
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Roni,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See my response to Jana regarding naming of extensions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regarding milestones - yes, we'll do that when the rest of the
> > > > > > > > changes go through. Thanks for the reminder.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 12 Dec 2019, at 5:49 pm, Roni Even (A)
> > > >
> > > > <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Mark,
> > > > > > > > > I am not sure why you need to name extensions in the
> > > > > > > > > charter. I think that
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > the extension work in the charter should be general and the
> > > > > > > > discussion about specific ones would be about creating a new
> > > >
> > > > milestone..
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BTW: maybe it will be good to update the milestones
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Roni Even
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: QUIC [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of
> > > > > > > > > > Mark Nottingham
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 11:38 PM
> > > > > > > > > > To: IETF QUIC WG
> > > > > > > > > > Cc: Lars Eggert
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re-chartering for extension work
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 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=2f5948b0-73cb45af-
> > > >
> > > > 2f59082b-0cc47ad93db4-7b6490019ba3569f&q=1&e=4eadb99e-52e4-
> 49b3-
> > > > adef-683bb7f58fea&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net<http://2Fwww.mnot.net>%2F
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Mark Nottingham
> > > > > > > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=bc29a42a-e0bba935-
> > > >
> > > > bc29e4b1-0cc47ad93db4-eaf17369ba9839a7&q=1&e=4eadb99e-52e4-
> 49b3-
> > > > adef-683bb7f58fea&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net<http://2Fwww.mnot.net>%2F
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Mark Nottingham
> > > > > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=21be3936-7d2c3429-
> 21be79ad-
> > > >
> > > > 0cc47ad93db4-613c07cadcb96094&q=1&e=4eadb99e-52e4-49b3-adef-
> > > > 683bb7f58fea&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mnot.net<http://2Fwww.mnot.net>%2F
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > Magnus Westerlund
> >
> >
> --
> Cheers
>
> Magnus Westerlund
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Networks, Ericsson Research
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
> Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>