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

[Martin Stiemerling <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jose,

On 01/29/2013 11:57 AM, Jose Saldana wrote:
> Yes, Martin. The idea is that many interested people may attend IETF Berlin
> in July: at least I know about interested people from U. Zaragoza, DLR,
> Telefonica, U. Zagreb, U. Stuttgart, who could attend that BoF. And also
> co-authors from Cisco (Dan, Michael, and perhaps Muthu) may be there. Well,
> these are the news I have. In addition, Mirko and I would also be able to
> organize the "online games traffic tutorial there".

So Berlin is the place to make a BoF.

>
> So is your idea to have a BoF for discussing the TCMTF WG in Berlin? Do you
> prefer that possibility instead of the "DISPATCH" option that Gonzalo
> suggested? If you confirm that, we would take it into account in order to
> organize the summer calendar.

We do not have the DISPATCH option in the Transport Area.

My proposal is to start socializing the idea within the IETF and to aim 
for a BoF in Berlin. Sending the proposal to the TSVAREA list might be a 
good start.

   Martin

>
> Thanks a lot,
>
> Jose
> PS: This is the option that Gonzalo suggested to Wes (November 29th):
> "Hi Wes,
>
> sure. When the proponents have a charter proposal ready, feel free to send
> it to the TSVAREA list for comments while informing all the other lists. If
> you want, I can take care of informing the DISPATCH list pointing to the
> relevant message in the TSVAREA list when you send it.
>
> With respect to where discussions should take place, DISPATCH participants
> will find it easier to send comments on the DISPATCH list.
> However, if sending comments requires subscribing to a different list and
> sending comments to a different crowd, many may not bother commenting. I can
> monitor the discussions in DISPATCH and send you a summary if needed. Since
> we are talking about very few lists, it should be relatively easy to keep
> things under control.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gonzalo"
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de
>> Martin Stiemerling
>> Enviado el: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 11:39
>> Para: FERNANDO PASCUAL BLANCO
>> CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Asunto: Re: [tcmtf] Improved version of the TCMTF Charter proposal (v3)
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The BoF deadline for the upcoming meeting was Jan 28.
>>
>> Further, my understanding is the relevant proponents cannot make it to the
>> IETF meeting in March in Orlando, but that there is a plan for the IETF
>> meeting in Berlin in July 2013.
>>
>>     Martin
>>
>> On 01/29/2013 11:13 AM, FERNANDO PASCUAL BLANCO wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>>           In my opinion the WG is needed. TCMTF discussion have reach
>>> enough interest and enough roadmap to have a room for itself, at least
>>> an small room. As Jose said, there are two enough active drafts and
>>> there is potentially room for three more, and I think this is a
>>> justification by itself.
>>>           On the other hand, I also think that we are problem centered.
>>> At least being in a network operation feet I find TCMTF useful enough.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Fernando Pascual Blanco
>>> Telefónica Global Resources
>>> Network Automation and Dynamization
>>> TECHNOLOGY PEOPLE GROUP
>>> F [phone]
>>> M [phone]
>>> [e-mail]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29/01/13 10:56, "Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matteo,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks a lot. Well, in this case, I don't agree with you (only in
>>>> this case).
>>>>
>>>> The idea with TCMTF was to create a "small" Working Group, the same
>>>> way as they are created in other Areas (e.g. RAI).
>>>>
>>>> As Wes said in November, " In my opinion, it is something a separate
>>>> WG should be created to handle, and not something to try to do inside
>>>> the TSVWG, since there are already a handful of things TSVWG is
>>>> wrestling with, and it creates too much "context switching" to have a
>>>> lot of unrelated topics under work there."
>>>>
>>>> The question is that the TSVWG group has a lot of interesting things
>>>> now, and it would be better to discuss TCMTF separately. In fact,
>>>> since the Summer, we are discussing it in another mailing list. This
>>>> is good, but in fact many people from TSVWG have not followed our
>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, a lot of time has passed. TCMTF draft was presented in
>>>> Paris
>>>> 10
>>>> months ago. A lot of people from many institutions have become
>>>> interested on it. We have two drafts and three more possibilities.
>>>>
>>>> Neither am I an expert on IETF, but I understand that things have
>>>> some
>>>> "momentum": if you let time go by, people may lose their interest.
>>>> And curently interest does exist, as we have seen in the list. So why
> not
>> now?
>>>>
>>>> In addition, the new version of the Charter is more problem-centered
>>>> (I hope).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jose
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>>>>> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] En
>> nombre
>>>>> de [e-mail] Enviado el: martes, 29 de enero de 2013
>>>>> 9:18
>>>>> Para: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>>> CC: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> Asunto: 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Wesley Eddy
>>>>> Sent: 24 January 2013 06:16
>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; 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
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> tcmtf mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> tcmtf mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
>> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
>> situado más abajo.
>>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
>> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
>>> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
>>>
>>
>> --
>> [e-mail]
>>
>> NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited
>> Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL Registered in
>> England 283 _______________________________________________
>> tcmtf mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf
>

-- 
[e-mail]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division NEC Europe Limited
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL
Registered in England 283