Hi Med, Mahesh, All,
From a process point of view, the charter proposal is now in the hand
of the responsible AD.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-opsawg/04-02/can only
edited by Mahesh. Joe and I can not even introduce the editorial changes
improvements (proposed by Med, acknowledged by Joe. btw, I also agree).
Regards, Benoit
On 3/21/2025 8:45 AM, Joe Clarke (jclarke) wrote:
Re,
Thanks Joe for the follow-up.
The siloed/lack of engagements for some topics is not related to the
dispatch nature but that sometimes small groups are only interested in
their documents. We may experiment in the future clustering and moving
to short-lived WGs. We should not be frightened by that as well :-)
[JMC] I like the idea of short-lived WGs. I think that will focus the
silos. But lack of specific charter focus – I feel – has also been an
issue.
As an OPS AD, I’d like we provide better visibility on the first entry
point to the area, hence an explicit endorsement of the dispatch function.
[JMC] You’re the boss !
Joe
Thank you.
Cheers,
Med
*De :*Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>
*Envoyé :* vendredi 21 mars 2025 08:13
*À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>;
Benoit Claise <benoit.claise=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>; opsawg
<opsawg@ietf.org>
*Objet :* Re: [OPSAWG]Re: OPSAWG recharrting
(1) I think that we need to have text to formally endorse the dispatch
function for the ops area.
(2) I would simplify this part as the message seems to be redundant:
"The OPSAWG
will serve as the forum for developing such work items in the IETF.
The OPSAWG mailing list is an open discussion forum for such work
items when they arise."
[JMC] I’m /okay/ with this, but we aren’t exactly a dispatch in the
sense of some other areas. Moreover, I think it’s because of this
kind of dual role we sometimes struggle to get engagement. For that
reason, while I wouldn’t strongly object, I’d prefer to leave this
more implied.
(3) Please remove OPS from this sentence "...don't otherwise belong to
another OPS Working Group" as there are ops-related topics in non-ops
area (e.g. transport matters in tsvwg).
[JMC] Fair point!
(4) Don't know what is meant by "small-scale extensions". May be we
want to say "minor extensions"?
[JMC] I like that.
(5) I would also cite service models, not only "network-level YANG
modules"
[JMC] I think I also listed service models in my initial comment on
this. Good catch.
(6) please clear the current two milestones
[JMC] I thought we did in our edits…
Joe
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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
