MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <66D6278C-AD45-456A-8D8F-9E22DEF204AD@gigix.net>
 <PR0P264MB2885887E1B14E5BF96D2270888E7A@PR0P264MB2885.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <aN4wp5B-N4kSxVbk@feather.sobornost.net>
 <4494FBB1-9A34-4E2F-8400-925B9D68584A@obtuse.com>
In-Reply-To: <4494FBB1-9A34-4E2F-8400-925B9D68584A@obtuse.com>
From: Tom Strickx <tstrickx@cloudflare.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2025 09:42:55 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAC93g0Ss0Lxavum4UzExZgv61T5ejPBCXft+S9E9=LnnidGXxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Beck <beck@obtuse.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000038216b06403d170b"
Message-ID-Hash: LRYJODI2KNOCDKUJVY42DXMHBDS77LMJ
CC: Luigi Iannone <ggx@gigix.net>,
 IETF SIDRops Chairs <sidrops-chairs@ietf.org>,
 SIDRops IETF <sidrops@ietf.org>, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com,
 Job Snijders <job@sobornost.net>
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BSidrops=5D_Re=3A_SIDROps_Charter_update?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/RedjaeRMQkSIFELDKoUvCmWifR0>

--00000000000038216b06403d170b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

All,

Going through the feedback provided by folks so far, I see multiple
mentions of "code". I'm somewhat surprised to see that we're postponing an
inclusion (yet again).
What gave the impression that the proposed wording needed more discussion?
Is this discussion for discussion sake? Design by committee?
Surely we're a group of grounded adults that can agree on something fairly
simple? It seems to work for the rest of the wording?

If we push through the current charter without the implementation
requirement, we're back to the start of a tedious process to get it added
(and added it should). To then maybe end up with
"ah, but we must discuss more!" at the end of it.

I'm disappointed.
--=20
Tom Strickx
Principal Network Engineer
AS13335 - Cloudflare


On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 10:00=E2=80=AFPM Bob Beck <beck@obtuse.com> wrote:

> Reading back through the feedback on list since the call for review of th=
e
> draft  rechartering, It certainly seems like of the opinions raised in
> favour of the rechartering, that I see were *also* in favour of including
> the requirement for two running implementations in addition to the stated
> draft rechartering. Yes, there were not many voices speaking up anyway,
> however, this is relatively common on IETF lists when relatively passive
> observers see that =E2=80=9Cyes there seem to be voices being spoken up w=
ith
> reasonable opinions=E2=80=9D.
>
> There were a few concerns about other issues such as being concerned abou=
t
> stalling drafts in progress.
>
> Given that those offering a supportive opinion for the rechartering
> *draft* being presented for review also appear to be predominantly  in
> support of adding the wording to requiring running code, It seems very od=
d
> that then this was brought forward and surprise, approved by an AD, done
> and dusted, end of debate,  without this.
>
> Was the =E2=80=9Cdraft=E2=80=9D being asked for review just polite fib fo=
r giving lip
> service to asking for consensus?  The draft was already going to be sent =
to
> the AD=E2=80=99s as is no matter what was discussed on list?
>
> It seems as if this =E2=80=9Cdraft=E2=80=9D was only sent out for informa=
tion that this
> was just the way it was going to be and it was already decided, If it was
> already pre decided that changes suggested by the mailing list would not =
be
> considered and this would be presented to the list as fait accompli from
> the AD, why waste the lists time and energy asking for a rubber stamp?  I=
t
> would be quicker to just say =E2=80=9Cwe decided what the new charter is,=
 here it
> is=E2=80=9D.
>
> -Bob
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 2025, at 01:58, Job Snijders <job@sobornost.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 06:18:03AM +0000, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> wrote:
> >> Hi Luigi, all,
> >>
> >> Thank you all for the work put into this minor update to unlock
> manifest-number.
> >
> > The majority of the authors of manifest-numbers indicated they'd like t=
o
> > see a running code requirement in the charter. So if you are trying to
> > rush through this charter update it is NOT for the the benefit of the
> > manifest-numbers document.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Job
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sidrops mailing list -- sidrops@ietf.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to sidrops-leave@ietf.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list -- sidrops@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to sidrops-leave@ietf.org
>

--00000000000038216b06403d170b
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>All,</div><div><br></div><div>Going through the feedb=
ack provided by folks so far, I see multiple mentions of &quot;code&quot;. =
I&#39;m somewhat surprised to see that we&#39;re postponing an inclusion (y=
et again).</div><div>What gave the impression that the proposed wording nee=
ded more discussion? Is this discussion for discussion sake? Design by comm=
ittee?</div><div>Surely we&#39;re a group of grounded adults that can agree=
 on something fairly simple? It seems to work for the rest of the wording?<=
/div><div><br></div><div>If we push through the current charter without the=
 implementation requirement, we&#39;re back to the start of a tedious proce=
ss to get it added (and added it should). To then maybe end up with</div><d=
iv>&quot;ah, but we must discuss more!&quot; at the end of it.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>I&#39;m disappointed.</div><div><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmai=
l_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><font=
 color=3D"#888888">--=C2=A0</font></div><div><font color=3D"#888888">Tom St=
rickx</font></div><div><font color=3D"#888888">Principal Network Engineer</=
font></div><div><font color=3D"#888888">AS13335 - Cloudflare</font></div></=
div></div></div><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_contain=
er"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 10:00=E2=
=80=AFPM Bob Beck &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:beck@obtuse.com">beck@obtuse.com</a=
>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px=
 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Rea=
ding back through the feedback on list since the call for review of the dra=
ft=C2=A0 rechartering, It certainly seems like of the opinions raised in fa=
vour of the rechartering, that I see were *also* in favour of including the=
 requirement for two running implementations in addition to the stated draf=
t rechartering. Yes, there were not many voices speaking up anyway, however=
, this is relatively common on IETF lists when relatively passive observers=
 see that =E2=80=9Cyes there seem to be voices being spoken up with reasona=
ble opinions=E2=80=9D. <br>
<br>
There were a few concerns about other issues such as being concerned about =
stalling drafts in progress. <br>
<br>
Given that those offering a supportive opinion for the rechartering *draft*=
 being presented for review also appear to be predominantly=C2=A0 in suppor=
t of adding the wording to requiring running code, It seems very odd that t=
hen this was brought forward and surprise, approved by an AD, done and dust=
ed, end of debate,=C2=A0 without this. <br>
<br>
Was the =E2=80=9Cdraft=E2=80=9D being asked for review just polite fib for =
giving lip service to asking for consensus?=C2=A0 The draft was already goi=
ng to be sent to the AD=E2=80=99s as is no matter what was discussed on lis=
t? <br>
<br>
It seems as if this =E2=80=9Cdraft=E2=80=9D was only sent out for informati=
on that this was just the way it was going to be and it was already decided=
, If it was already pre decided that changes suggested by the mailing list =
would not be considered and this would be presented to the list as fait acc=
ompli from the AD, why waste the lists time and energy asking for a rubber =
stamp?=C2=A0 It would be quicker to just say =E2=80=9Cwe decided what the n=
ew charter is, here it is=E2=80=9D.<br>
<br>
-Bob<br>
<br>
<br>
&gt; On Oct 2, 2025, at 01:58, Job Snijders &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:job@sobor=
nost.net" target=3D"_blank">job@sobornost.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 06:18:03AM +0000, <a href=3D"mailto:mohamed.bo=
ucadair@orange.com" target=3D"_blank">mohamed.boucadair@orange.com</a> wrot=
e:<br>
&gt;&gt; Hi Luigi, all,<br>
&gt;&gt; <br>
&gt;&gt; Thank you all for the work put into this minor update to unlock ma=
nifest-number.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; The majority of the authors of manifest-numbers indicated they&#39;d l=
ike to<br>
&gt; see a running code requirement in the charter. So if you are trying to=
<br>
&gt; rush through this charter update it is NOT for the the benefit of the<=
br>
&gt; manifest-numbers document.<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Kind regards,<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; Job<br>
&gt; <br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; Sidrops mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:sidrops@ietf.org" target=3D"=
_blank">sidrops@ietf.org</a><br>
&gt; To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:sidrops-leave@ietf.o=
rg" target=3D"_blank">sidrops-leave@ietf.org</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Sidrops mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:sidrops@ietf.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">sidrops@ietf.org</a><br>
To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:sidrops-leave@ietf.org" t=
arget=3D"_blank">sidrops-leave@ietf.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000038216b06403d170b--