Subject: [Anima] Notes from the ANIMA call today

From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:20:40 +0000

Recording is here: 
https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/lsr.php?RCID=e83b7fcf90684a8eb4fca6cda4da6445

Notes from the ANIMA Call
18 Sep 2014

Attendees: 
Sheng Jiang, Bing Liu, Dan Romascanu, Guy Meador, Laurent Ciavaglia, Rene Struik, Toerless Eckert, 
Yu Fu, Michael Behringer (notes)

Notes: 

Sheng reads "note well"
Deadline for scheduling requests approaching. 

Two main questions: 
- do we want to ask the AD to propose the charter? 
- ask for time slot at next IETF?

Charter Discussion. 

We have a new charter -07b, proposed by Sheng. 
Clarification on the open issues, mentioned other use cases are acceptable. 
Going through the list in his latest email. 

Michael shows diff between charter 06 and 07b

Rene: Might be useful to have a generic sync protocol (see email). 
Sheng: The negotiation function is meant for that. 
Rene: Statements like "it's clear that..." are not helping. We need reviews. 
If we WG figures out that the negotiation protocol solves all the problem, that's good. 
Michael: Is this discussion part of the charter? 
Rene: Not clear what is in/out of scope. This is causing the pushback.
Sheng: We agree that we need synchronisation. But misunderstanding. All that's relevant to
common components is in scope. Maybe not a milestone. 
Rene: Disagrement on existing documents, seems like other docs are out of scope. 
Michael: Other documents are allowed, and can be adopted, as long as they fit the goals. 
Rene: Output of the group should be ... Synchronisation should be included. 
Sheng: Should we include synchronisation as a goal in the charter? 
Rene: Yes, we can add synchronisation, would help for this particular question but there are more...
Laurent: Limited scope is fine; but if other people don't find something to work in the first 
  phase, what should they do? Just wait for their turn? 
Sheng: DHC workign group has the same sentence (additional work items can only be added ...) 
Michael: reason for limiting goals is that AN is too big an area to tackle all issues at the same time. 
Rene: Agree that there has to be some limits. Effort is useful. But group is trying to push a charter
  without proper foundation. Ex: Gap analysis has vague statements, almost independent of AN. 
  If we want to improve on the described functionalities, need a proper assessment first. 
  Where is the analysis on current problems? 
  Still has a hard time to assess what went wrong and what can be done better. 
Michael: But is this not a part of the WG's job? 
Michael: We believe we have some good problem statements and draft solutions, such as draft-pritikin. 
Rene: There isn't much justification in the docs. Maybe that's part of the effort. 
Sheng: Most of those comments are specific to documents. Not a charter question. 
Rene: Docs are mentioned as background to the charter, thus think they must be discussed as part of the
  charter discussion. 
Sheng: ACP not mentioned in gap analysis. There is a gap between that doc and the charter. 
Rene: one of the goals of the charter should be to define what needs more work. 
Laurent: Maybe normal process is too long, but in the process of a WG, added value should be clear. 
Michael: Clearly no complete consensus, but can we get the benefit of the doubt? Get started with the WG, and
  have technical discussion, agree on the actual work items as a process. 
Sheng: Agree, we should close on the charter and do the actual work. 
Rene: Problem is that this is more of a systems approach, should be taken to IAB. What is wrong with another 
  BoF? 
Dan: If 2nd BoF fails it's over for a while. 
Laurent: Still some disagreements on approach and technical stuff, but can live with that. 
  Worry: once we have a WG, we may end up with difficulties to create useful output. 
  Not blocking the situation, however. 
Dan: Same feeling. Better definitions needed. Like, ACP is unclear until you read the draft, but 
  this can be done later. "good enough" for now. 
Rene: Quite critical; wasted a lot of time on procedures, rather than work. 
  We started on the wrong foot, but don't want to be blamed for blocking it. 
  If the majority decides we should go ahead, he won't block it. 
Toerless: Rene, do you think the work that YOU want to contribue is covered? 
Rene: Don't know. Looking long term. His interests fit to some degree. 
Guy: Work is very interesting and useful. Charter can be tweaked "till the cows come home".
  lets get started. The specific goals in the charter are necessary to advance the work.
Yu: We spent a month on this discussion. Let's do some actual work. Agree to move ahead.
Bing: AN is a big concept. Also agrees to move ahead. 
Michael: So, let's send the latest version to the AD and request BoF or WG, whatever AD prefers. 
Sheng: Will request a slot for the next IETF slot.
Rene: Signal to AD that this is a overarching protocol work, and may need IAB work. 
Toerless: Should still fit into ops area. 
Sheng will request time slot at next IETF, and will ping AD with latest version of charter.