Barry, I believe your interpretation is correct.
Regards Brian Carpenter On 30-Apr-19 06:59, Barry Leiba wrote: >> I am under the impression that there is a small ambiguity in the charter, >> which >> shouldn't be hard to resolve: >> >> ANIMA work will rely on the framework described in >> draft-ietf-anima-reference-model. [...] The three areas of the framework >> are >> [...] and (3) Intent. >> >> ANIMA will not work on Intent [...] without explicit rechartering. >> >> The first piece seems to allow for working on Intent while the second clearly >> not (within the current charter). > > I tripped over that also when I first read it, but then understood: > the WG will rely on the framework, which includes a set of things. > Not all of those things will be worked on via this charter. In > particular, "intent" is one of the things that won't be. > > As I read it, I think the charter is OK. I suppose it could be > clarified this way: > > OLD > ANIMA work will rely on the framework described in > draft-ietf-anima-reference-model. Work not related to this framework is > welcome > for review, but WG adoption of such work requires explicit rechartering. The > three areas of the framework are (1) the Autonomic Networking Infrastructure > (ANI), (2) Autonomic Functions (AF) built from software modules called > Autonomic Service Agents (ASA) and (3) Intent. > > NEW > ANIMA work will rely on the framework described in > draft-ietf-anima-reference-model, though only parts of the framework are > in scope for this charter, as detailed below. Work not related to > this framework > is welcome for review, but WG adoption of such work requires explicit > rechartering. > The three areas of the framework are (1) the Autonomic Networking > Infrastructure > (ANI), (2) Autonomic Functions (AF) built from software modules called > Autonomic Service Agents (ASA) and (3) Intent. > > END > >> I'm not sure to understand what the following means: >> >> Acceptance of work items by the WG will be scheduled/throttled so that >> contributors can target them to enter WG last call after not more than a >> number >> of IETF meeting cycles agreed by the AD. > > As I read it, it means that the working group won't take on so much > work that the work they do take on doesn't get done. Acceptance is > based on negotiating a schedule (based on meeting cycles), and if the > schedule isn't met, new work items can't be accepted. > > Barry > > _______________________________________________ > Anima mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
