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

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: tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tcmtf-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de
> Matteo.Berioli@dlr.de
> Enviado el: martes, 29 de enero de 2013 9:18
> Para: wes@mti-systems.com; jsaldana@unizar.es
> CC: tcmtf@ietf.org; Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com;
> Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu
> 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: 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
> _______________________________________________
> tcmtf mailing list
> tcmtf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcmtf