On 9/28/2017 1:42 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
Hi Mike,
I had specifically reached out to the chairs asking for a virtual interim on
the profiles and was surprised by that not being listed. This was a result of
agreement at the face to face. It's not that one is being held hostage, Kepeng
has already offered to run 2 separate sessions within the same week. Maybe you
missed a message?
Best,
Kathleen
Hi Kathleen -
No - I hadn't missed the message. In fact it's part of the chain
below. I think that doing two sessions is a reasonable resolution.
Hannes had already suggested two sessions when Goran made his comment.
I was responding to Goran's. While I appreciate Goran's frustration
with the slow pace of things in ACE, I also appreciate that we can only
do what people are willing to spend time doing and I was also giving
voice to my perception that there really isn't a good common
understanding of what's acceptable as an ACE work item.
The original ACE charter was somewhat compact and I would have been
happy had the group completed the last two items on the currently
approved charter and closed up shop. Instead the group as a whole
decided to adopt a bunch more items without amending the charter setting
somewhat of a precedent. Now we've started down the path of profiles
which are also non-charter items. I'm confused as to why these are any
different with respect to working group consideration than an item on
certificate enrollment? (I'm not sure I would buy the argument that the
profiles are "mechanisms suitable for resource access in constrained
environments" and that "certificate enrollment" is not)
So perhaps its time to pause the group and focus all our efforts on
re-chartering and hold off on all new items including the whole
profiling wiki stuff? At the same time pruning the list of Active and
Related IDs for the group to something manageable?
Mike
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 28, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Michael StJohns <[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/27/2017 1:29 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
Goran has a good point here.
Actually - I don't think he does. If there is a sufficiently interested group
of people that want to talk certificate enrollment and there is a chair
available and willing then do an interim on that. If there is a group of
sufficiently interested group of people that want to talk about the roadmap
then do an interim on that. If ACE doesn't want to have such an interim then
perhaps it still gets done as a virtual BOF. But this has as much legitimacy
as any of the other ACE work items.
Virtual interims have another more common name - teleconferences. They're cheap
to hold.
Don't hold the certificate stuff hostage to the roadmap stuff and don't confuse
a F2F interim with a virtual interim with respect to providing a false either
or choice.
The IETF is bottom up - we work on what the members are interested in working
on. It's not a great idea holding one idea hostage as a means of trying to get
work done on something else.
Later, Mike
Kathleen
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Göran Selander
<[email protected]> wrote:
As I mentioned in a previous mail, I’m completely against giving priority
to non-charter items. Therefore the first interim meeting should be
focused on the ACE roadmap - the output from the Wiki activity. If we have
time to discuss certificate enrolment, that is fine. If we want a later
interim for the certificate enrolment discussion that is fine too, as long
as there is sufficient time is given to decide on the ongoing work.
Göran
On 2017-09-27 18:34, "Ace on behalf of Hannes Tschofenig"
<[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
Fair enough.
We either need to make it longer or pick two dates. I prefer the latter.
On 09/27/2017 06:23 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
Sure, my response was to make it clear the wiki was to be discussed
though. Will this all be on one call or two? The announcement wasn't
clear and I'd like ot make sure the WG is ready for the profiles
discussion.
Best,
Kathleen
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Hannes Tschofenig
<[email protected]> wrote:
I agree with Kepeng that we also wanted to discuss the certificate
enrollment in addition to the Wiki.
On 09/27/2017 05:23 PM, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
Hello Kepeng,
The interim should also be to discuss the profiles as that was a
priority from the WG session in Prague. Goran pulled together the
wiki, now it's up to the WG participants to check the wiki and amend
as needed to allow for a productive session. Or did you plan on two
interims? Timing is tight for that though.
Best regards,
Kathleen
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Kepeng Li
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
According to our IETF 99 meeting minutes, we will hold an interim
meeting on
certificate enrolment in constrained environments.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/minutes-99-ace/
We proposed three options for the meeting time:
1. 17th Oct, Tuesday, GMT 13:00 ~ 14:00.
2. 18th Oct, Wednesday, GMT 13:00 ~ 14:00.
3. 19th Oct, Thursday, GMT 13:00 ~ 14:00.
Please indicate your available time from the doodle poll:
https://doodle.com/poll/ig3bhr7tfb2xh4u4
Hannes and I will prepare the agenda and send out later. We may add
other
topics to the agenda.
Thanks.
Kind Regards
Kepeng & Hannes
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
