Hi Benoît, all
As an input to the chartering discussion but without any intention to interfere
with the ongoing discussion, I'd like to remind that we do have the following
OPS-related items in rfc2418#Section 2.2:
==
To facilitate evaluation of the intended work and to provide on-
going guidance to the working group, the charter must describe the
^^^^^^^^^^
problem being solved and should discuss objectives and expected
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
impact with respect to:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- Architecture
- Operations <=======================
- Security
- Network management <==================
- Scaling <=============================
- Transition (where applicable) <=======
==
Cheers,
Med
De : Benoit Claise <[email protected]>
Envoyé : mercredi 16 juillet 2025 09:39
À : Alvaro Retana <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc : [email protected]; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email protected]>
Objet : Re: Scope creep: Initial Shepherd Review of draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis-03
Hi Alvaro,
Thanks for your review.
Just one comment has not been discussed so far.
(5) Scope creep?
§1.2 (Audience) mentions several potential uses of this document beyond
documenting the operational and manageability considerations for New
Protocols or Protocol Extensions, for example: "Area Director who is in the
process of creating a new WG Charter...OPS Directorate can use this
document to guide performing reviews". But there is no guidance on how ADs
should use the document when chartering. A reference is provided to the
OPS Dir checklist. IMO, both potential uses should be outside the scope of
the document.
[May be related to
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/issues/65]
Regarding "But there is no guidance on how ADs should use the document when
chartering", I understand that the following text is a little bit light:
As an Area Director who is in the process of creating a new WG Charter, this
document lists some considerations of the functionality needed to operate and
manage New Protocols and Protocol Extensions.
As previous OPS AD, I was convinced of the importance of addressing the
manageability and operational aspects early in the process (to state the
obvious). A DISCUSS, at the very last step in the process, has never been an
ideal tool to send the WG back to the drawing board.
This sentence above, which I wrote, wanted to stress that this RFC can be used
as input at charter creation time, with a list of "OPS things" that the new WG
& IESG in the end might be thinking about when approving the charter text.
Before updating the text, do we agree about the intended goal?
Regards, Benoit
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
