Hi, This email closes the call for adoption - pending the charter. The document will be adopted as a WG document *when* the charter is approved with this piece of work as part of the charter.
When the charter is approved - and not before - I expect the co-author to update their document as a WG document using draft-ietf-* without changing the text. I hope the charter will be approved by the next interim meeting [2] in which case, I expect the draft to be presented/updated. My interpretation of the call is that we do have a light consensus for adoption. The main concern for not adopting the work was that the WG may spend too many cycles on the document. I tend to agree that the draft should be moved forward in a fast way and believe it could be sent to the IESG by June as stated in the milestones [1]. The WG lamps should probably get informed of what we are doing at least for the WGLC. Yours, Daniel [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ace/about/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/upcoming On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 8:16 AM Daniel Migault <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Just to remind you the call for adoption ends today. > > Yours, > Daniel > > > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 6:01 PM Mohit Sahni <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks Daniel and Hendrik, Since it has been a some time when we >> discussed about this draft, here is a summary of discussions that we >> had on this draft regarding the adoption: >> >> Brockhaus, Hendrik: >> >Thanks to Mohit for his request on rechartering and adoption. I support >> this. >> >> Panos Kampanakis: >> > I oppose adoption unless there is a compelling reason why. Also I am >> not sure where this draft would be implemented and used. If this is just >> for one or two vendors I don’t think ACE needs to spend the cycles. >> >> Brockhaus, Hendrik: >> >I think we have to accept that there are different protocols with >> different abilities chosen in different verticals. >> >> Michael Richardson: >> > I have no fundamental objection to this work, and I think that it >> should be adopted. >> >But, I think that it is worth doing more than just s/http/coap/. >> Plus some suggestions on the draft. >> >> Mohit Sahni: >> > Some of your suggestions should be discussed in the context of the >> LightWeight CMP profile draft >> > I will work on making it more clear what are the pros and cons of using >> a proxy vs direct communication >> > I will add the endpoint definitions and make resource discovery more >> clear in the draft. >> > This draft only defines how to use the CoAP transport for carrying the >> CMP messages. When and what CMP messages are sent should come under the CMP >> protocol implementation itself >> >> Olaf Bergmann: >> > One thing that might get in our way when doing this in ACE is the >> emerging input for draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile. But otherwise, >> I do not see a strong reason for not adopting >> draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport. >> >> Brockhaus, Hendrik: >> > Actually this was first discussed in LAMPS, but as the draft focusses >> on CoAP transport and not on CMP specifics, the group had the opinion that >> ACE is the better home as here is the knowledge regarding CoAP. >> >> Thanks >> Mohit >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 12:14 PM Brockhaus, Hendrik >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Daniel >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks for kicking the ball. >> > >> > I would appreciate the adoption of Mohits draft and I am also willing >> to review it. >> > >> > >> > >> > There are also implementation demonstrating CMP message transport on >> CoAP next to HTTP. >> > >> > https://github.com/siemens/embeddedCMP >> > >> > https://github.com/siemens/LightweightCmpRa >> > >> > Any feedback is welcome! >> > >> > >> > >> > Hendrik >> > >> > >> > >> > Von: Ace <[email protected]> Im Auftrag von Daniel Migault >> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Januar 2021 20:28 >> > An: Ace Wg <[email protected]> >> > Betreff: [Ace] Call for adoption draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > >> > >> > The charter approval by the IESG has been a bit delayed and is expected >> to be approved in the coming weeks. In the meanwhile, this email starts a >> call for adoption on work that has been included in the charter. Of course, >> adoption is contingent on the rechartering succeeding. >> > >> > >> > >> > The document called for adoption is >> draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport available here: >> > >> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-msahni-ace-cmpv2-coap-transport-01 >> > >> > >> > >> > Please state your opinion on whether this work should not or should be >> adopted by the WG and express your motivation for such a statement. The >> call for adoption closes on January 21. >> > >> > >> > >> > Yours, >> > >> > Daniel >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Daniel Migault >> > >> > Ericsson >> > > > -- > Daniel Migault > Ericsson > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
