Hi Roman, I sincerely appreciate your commitment to the three YANG drafts and advice on the re-chartering.
I believe that our I2NSF WG will have much energy for the re-chartering to enable our I2NSF work to be widely used in the industry. Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 3:12 AM Roman Danyliw <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul and WG! > > > > Thanks for your patience. > > > > *From:* I2nsf <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * Mr. Jaehoon Paul > Jeong > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 27, 2021 10:54 AM > *To:* Linda Dunbar <[email protected]>; Yoav Nir < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected]; skku-iotlab-members < > [email protected]>; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* [I2nsf] Request for Help for I2NSF WG Work > > > > Hi Linda and Yoav, > > > > I would like to ask you as I2NSF WG chairs to help me to proceed with our > I2NSF WG work. > > > > Could you ask Roman to push the Capability Draft, NSF-Facing Interface > Draft, and NSF Monitoring Draft into the IESG? > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model/ > > > > [Roman] Thanks for the substantial edits in -17 to -20 in response to my > AD review. I’m most of the way through a second review and would expect > the share any blockers, if any, to IETF LC before IETF 112. > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm/ > > > > [Roman] I see the additional edits -13 to 15 in response to my follow-up > to the original AD review. Thanks. I plan to re-review -15 next. > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model/ > > > > [Roman] I see the edits in -09 to -11 in response to my AD review. This > will be the last ones I review. > > > > [Roman] I will commit to re-reviewing all three drafts no later than > November 19th (given the upcoming IETF 112 meeting). > > > > > > [snip] > > > > BTW, as we had an interim meeting on December in 2020, my SKKU team are > working for the Re-chartering of I2NSF WG, > > including the Security Management Automation, Application Interface, and > Security Policy Translation: > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jeong-i2nsf-security-management-automation/ > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lingga-i2nsf-application-interface-dm/ > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yang-i2nsf-security-policy-translation/ > > > > I hope our I2NSF WG makes Re-chartering to work on those new work items > > so that I2NSF framework and interfaces can be used in the industry. > > > > [Roman] I strongly encourage continued WG discussion on the evolution of > I2NSF. However, I will repeat what I said in November 2020 ( > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/FBzpXwPUaY5PkcgvKpWnHAAanp4/) > -- for me to support a re-charter, I would have to see a renewed > demonstration of energy and support for these new items. Such energy would > include not only a demonstration of parties interested in working on the > drafts themselves, but also additional (independent) parties volunteering > to review these new drafts and some signal that there are parties (beyond > the draft authors/organizations) willing to adopt (implement) this work. > This is demonstration is needed for any WG re-charter, but in particular > for I2NSF, as I have concerns that energy has dropped in this WG below a > threshold to take on new work. Unless something radical changes, I see the > WG continuing to steward the existing work items submitted to the IESG for > publication, and then close when these work items are passed to the RFC > Editor. > > > > I acknowledge that assessing WG energy level is subjective so I’m basing > my conclusion on the following: > > > > ** The WG has not convened at an official “F2F” IETF meeting since IETF > 105 (July 2019) – well before the pandemic. Since this last F2F meeting, > there was a single interim meeting (in Dec 2020, almost a year ago) solely > to talk about re-chartering (see next bullet). I2NSF is again not meeting > at IETF 112. > > > > ** Re-chartering has been brought up on the mailing list three separate > times in the last year (to include at the interim meeting in 2020-12): > > -- Nov 2020 thread -- > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/z-EIzlcrgURu6hLygbTxd4GsYW8/ > > -- Dec 2020 thread -- > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/emK5lGoG2PdBwMoVMB2ewlgYyTI/ > > -- Feb 2021 thread -- > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/5hQCJagFY29uL8FznfxHQmu6hB4/ > > > > In all instances, the follow-up to these threads generated almost not > non-administrative discussion, and very little support. > > > > ** There is no organic discussion of new or existing I2NSF work on the > mailing list. A quick review of the last year (back to October 2010) shows > the list traffic to be almost exclusively from the co-chairs, document > authors, IESG review, and LC feedback (to include directorate reviews). > > > > Thanks, > > Roman > > > > Thanks. > > > > Best Regards, > > Paul > > -- > > =========================== > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. > Associate Professor > > Department Head > Department of Computer Science and Engineering > Sungkyunkwan University > Office: +82-31-299-4957 > Email: [email protected], [email protected] > Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> >
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
