Subject: [dtn] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-dtn-01-02: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 21:26:42 -0800

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dtn-01-02: No Objection

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-dtn/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

    This architecture will define a standard model
    for the forwarding process of a Bundle Process Agent, providing an
    informational reference point for further specifications.

There seems to be some mismatch between "standard model" and
"informational reference point".  If it's not intended to be in a
standards-track document, perhaps "reference model" would avoid the
difficulty?

  * The definition of architecture and protocols in the areas of Operations,
  Administration and Management (OAM), and Key Management

(nit) I think "an architecture" is needed here.

    Additional extensions to the Bundle Protocol, additional Security Context
    definitions for BPSec, and new Convergence Layer adaptors will be
    considered on a case-by-case basis by the working group.

Can we say anything about what factors will go into these considerations
(other than, presumably, WG interest)?  Will the reponsible AD need to
be involved in the decision to undertake such work?

---

From: Rick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 17:03:19 +0000

Hi Benjamin,

Comments inline...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 02 December 2021 05:27
> To: The IESG
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on charter-ietf-dtn-01-02: (with
> COMMENT)
> 

+1 - Yes good point, being an English-UK speaker I suffer from additional flowery language that confuses.  How about:

"This architecture will define a model
for the forwarding process of a Bundle Process Agent, providing an
informational reference point for further specifications."

> (nit) I think "an architecture" is needed here.

+1 - Yes - missing an 'an'

> be involved in the decision to undertake such work?

We currently have personal drafts for many of these subjects, and consensus in the WG to work on the topics.  The decision about which drafts will be put forward for adoption will be made by the chairs and AD, taking account of WG workload, authors availability, etc.

Would adding an extra phrase such as the following help?

 "... considered on a case-by-case basis by the working group, taking into account the interest and workload of the working group."

Thanks for the feedback!

Rick

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 11:46:30 -0800

Hi Rick,

Also inline...

> informational reference point for further specifications."

Works for me.

>  "... considered on a case-by-case basis by the working group, taking into account the interest and workload of the working group."

It would probably help some, yes.
I'm coming at this from the angle of "the charter is a contract between the
WG and the IESG, and sometimes the community wants us to limit the scope of
what's allowed under the contract".  This phrasing basically says that all
work on BP, BPsec, and CLAs is in scope (but not required to be), which in
all honesty is probably fine and appropriate.  In other contexts and other
WGs the situation can be different and we insist on recharter or AD
approval to take on certain topics.  I don't see any real reason to do that
here, and my question in the ballot position was just an attempt to make
sure that everyone is on the same page.

Thanks,

Ben

---

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 10:27:21 +0000

Thanks Ben for your comments and Rick for the response.

Please see below.

On 2021-12-03, 20:47, "dtn on behalf of Benjamin Kaduk" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi Rick,

    Also inline...

    Works for me.

LGTM.

The main point of being "case-by-case" is that we are not sure what will come up in future. The protocols will be get deployed and new experiences may lead to some new work needed, for example - a  new CLA might become meaningful to do. 

You are right that those work are in the scope of this charter and rightly should be done in the DTN working group. To that extent rechartering would not be necessary. Now, whether the WG would like to take those on as they emerge is another question - it may ,as those are important, or it can park them as the working group is - for example, overloaded.

I don’t think we need any change here in the text.

BR
Zahed