Re: [Anima] Potential Milestones for ANIMA new charter

[Michael Richardson]

Eliot Lear  wrote:
> I think we’re coming close to needing a bit of a work plan for just the 
BRSKI
> documents alone. That is- it’s not just how many documents but which 
ones, in
> order to accomplish which functions. At this point, I am presuming that 
the
> base document is just about done.

Yes, In theory it's back in the ADs' hands to put in the IESG queue.
I hope that the three reviews will be enough; but I suspect that there will
be a bunch of mis-understandings from some quarters that will need to get
resolved.

> The constrained-voucher doc looks like it
> needs to get pushed over the finish line.

Yes.  The EST-COAPS part is done, the voucher part is done.
There are some hangups with references in CORE (SID stuff) that is going to
MISSREF badly once we get into the RFC editor queue.

> And then, it seems to me our
> chartering discussion might do well to focus down a bit on what is needed 
for
> different operating environments, so as to help sort overlap in drafts 
with
> an understanding of who wants to commit what code.

1) I think we will need to write some contrasting use case documents.
2) We will need some additional real-world experience.

--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-





signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima

Re: [Anima] Potential Milestones for ANIMA new charter

[Eliot Lear]

Hi Sheng,

> On 16 Mar 2019, at 01:56, Sheng Jiang  wrote:
> 
> Hi, Eliot,
> 
> As you know, the charter text is different from the milestones. In charter 
> text, we will have a paragraph to describe the BRSKI relevant works. In 
> principle, all BRSKI works, even those have not been mentioned, would be 
> covered. So, BRSKI works, no matter they are listed as milestones or not, are 
> in WG scope.

Thanks.  That’s what I was aiming at.  Are you looking for some proposed text?


> 
> Milestones are these work items that WG MUST deliver in a limited time, say a 
> year or one and half years. So, as WG chairs, we would like to have a shorter 
> list for each period, for which every work item has enough energy to complete 
> in time. This is also IESG would like to see. We could easily add milestones 
> later when the WG had shown enough interests and energy for new in-scope 
> works.
> 
> “+ One BRSKI document” means newly adopt one more BRSKI document. The reason 
> that we do not want too many new BRSKI document immediately is that the WG 
> need energy to guarantee the current adopted BRSKI works, including the main 
> BRSKI document and constrained voucher, to be completed as soon as possible 
> with high quality.
> 

I think we’re coming close to needing a bit of a work plan for just the BRSKI 
documents alone.  That is- it’s not just how many documents but which ones, in 
order to accomplish which functions.  At this point, I am presuming that the 
base document is just about done.  The constrained-voucher doc looks like it 
needs to get pushed over the finish line.  And then, it seems to me our 
chartering discussion might do well to focus down a bit on what is needed for 
different operating environments, so as to help sort overlap in drafts with an 
understanding of who wants to commit what code.

Eliot


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima