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

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 +34913128779
M +34682005168
fpb@tid.es

On 29/01/13 10:56, "Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> 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: 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>tcmtf mailing list
>tcmtf@ietf.org
>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