Alvaro, Adrian,
Now convinced. Even if this document might be useful to other audiences,
we should re-focus the audience section to target only the draft authors
writing the Operational Considerations section.
We'll address this in the next draft revision.
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/issues/97
Regards, Benoit
On 7/16/2025 8:53 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:
I agree with Adrian's point about focusing the document on the
description/contents of the Operational Considerations section.
I understand the importance of considering operations and management
from the start, and how calling it out in a charter may help.
However, requiring (or even suggesting) items on a charter is not what
this document should be about.
My 1c.
Alvaro.
On July 16, 2025 at 4:40:59 AM, Adrian Farrel (adr...@olddog.co.uk) wrote:
My feeling is that *any* discussion of what a charter bcp14-includes
is a very good thing: the current IESG is all over the place, lacking
consistency, and randomly blicking (re)charters with personal
opinions of what the process is. I even believe that the community
must write this stuff down and take it out of the IESG's hands.
However, *this* is not the document to cover that topic, and I
strongly feel that it should not go near it. Not even a hint that ADs
should think about operational aspects when chartering.
This document is about what goes in a subset of all new RFCs.
Anything else is a distraction.
A
On 16/07/2025 09:08 BST mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
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 <benoit.cla...@huawei.com>
*Envoyé :* mercredi 16 juillet 2025 09:39
*À :* Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com>;
draft-opsarea-rfc5706...@ietf.org
*Cc :* opsawg@ietf.org; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
<mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>
*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 -- opsawg@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
