Re: [tcmtf] Improved version of the TCMTF Charter proposal (v3)

Dear all,

I don't have a huge experience in IETF, but feel it is important to express my opinion this time.
I have the feeling building a new WG is a bit premature, considering that we just have an Internet draft.
I also find the discussion a bit documents-driven, rather than problems-driven.
IMHO we could wait a bit, before creating the WG, to see whether the ideas we have really solve real-world problems.

That's it. Hope this helps.

Matteo

-----Original Message-----
From: tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wesley Eddy
Sent: 24 January 2013 06:16
To: jsaldana@unizar.es
Cc: tcmtf@ietf.org; Gonzalo Camarillo; Martin Stiemerling
Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Improved version of the TCMTF Charter proposal (v3)

On 1/23/2013 6:58 AM, Jose Saldana wrote:
> Hello all.
> 
>  
> 
> After reading the messages in the mailing list, I think we have 
> arrived to a solution. Each of the documents has been discussed in a 
> separate thread, so I have tried to take everything into account. 
> Documents (A) and (B) would be in the Charter. Documents (C) and (D) 
> would only be announced as possibilities for re-chartering, and 
> Document (E) can wait a little.
> 
> ...

In my opinion, this is decent, though here are two criticisms:

(1) In my opinion, it focuses too much on documents to be produced,
    rather than fully and clearly motivating why the working group
    is needed (i.e. to solve a problem, not to develop documents),
    how it's scope is delimited (i.e. what it *won't* touch isn't
    clear to me, along with what other areas/WGs need to be
    coordinated with), and what the end-goal is.

(2) There's a focus on defining technical solutions prior to the
    mention of fleshing out and totally defining the use cases /
    requirements.  In my opinion, that appears backwards :).

That said, I'm generally supportive of this work.  In my opinion, as an AD, we would normally feel better having a BoF before forming a WG, for two reasons (1) to get other areas (e.g. RAI) to be aware of what's being proposed, and (2) to vet that there really is a community of stakeholders that are engaged to do the work.  In this case, I think the 2nd point is evident from the mailing list, and I don't have a concern about it at all.  I think the 1st point can be addressed through the responsible AD coordinating with the IESG and the directorates or area mailing lists that related areas have.
Since I'm going away as an AD though, what really matters at the moment is what Martin thinks :).

--
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems
_______________________________________________
tcmtf mailing list
tcmtf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf