Subject: [lisp] Jari Arkko's Block on charter-ietf-lisp-03-00: (with BLOCK)

From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 15:50:02 -0800

Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-lisp-03-00: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-lisp/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for formulating a proposal for LISP work to continue to next
step(s). The results will be interesting, and there's a group of people
interested in doing the work.

The basics of the proposed charter seem good; learn from the experience
and take what worked well into PS, ditch the not-so-well-worked parts,
and continue some part of the work as experimental until we have more
experience of it.

I will support a new charter for the working group, but first I have a
question that I want discuss. I do think though that we should talk about
the scoping of the charter. It is quite imprecise with respect to what
will be on standards track and what is not. Could that or the process
leading to that decision be clarified? Or am I missing something on this
late hour when I read the charter? For instance, consider taking to PS
things that we have published as RFCs before (possibly modified).

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:26:40 -0500

I am not sure what you are asking for Jari.

There have beeen some comments that we should make clearer that the top 
priority (although not preventing the WG from working on other topics) 
is moving the needed core documents from Experimental to PS.  That 
change is one we can and should make.

Beyond that, I don't think we want to mandate in the charter whether the 
other work will turn out to be experimental or standards track.  Can you 
explain why we need to decide that status issue now?

Yours,
Joel

On 2/3/16 6:50 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> lisp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 08:12:35 +0100

Joel,

> There have beeen some comments that we should make clearer that the top priority (although not preventing the WG from working on other topics) is moving the needed core documents from Experimental to PS.  That change is one we can and should make.

That is ok.

> Beyond that, I don't think we want to mandate in the charter whether the other work will turn out to be experimental or standards track.  Can you explain why we need to decide that status issue now?

The proposed charter has no information in this topic. It essentially gives the issue up to the working group to decide .That may or may not be fine, and I like the model where the working group is in charge. But at the same time, a complete freedom makes it more difficult for anybody at the community or the IESG to say later that wait, this particular item shouldn’t be on standards track.

I like to think of the charter as a promise. About getting to do and publish the work & doing within these requirements or constraints.

What I am asking is some additional scoping. This could be of course a direct spec of what is standards track and what is not in the charter. Is that not possible then at this time? But there are of course alternatives, as well, such stating what you know now and making changes later; asking the working group to come to some kind of checkpoint later when you do know and communicate with the rest of the IETF and IESG about your suggested classification; or adding some kind of general language to the charter about what types of results you feel are sufficient for standards track (broad interest, experience, have resolved all major issues, …).

My preference would be to state what is standards track right now in the charter, if that is known. If that is not known, then we can discuss more and figure out if, for instance, the general language approach would help.

Jari