Hi Med, I agree with Joe that a dispatch function has taken over a whole different definition in IETF, with formal meeting slots and times set for them in each meeting. We are not there as yet.
I will process the rest of the edits for the charter and send it forward before the weekend. Thanks. > On Mar 20, 2025, at 6:30 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com 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 :-) > > 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. > > Thank you. > > Cheers, > Med > > De : Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com <mailto:jcla...@cisco.com>> > Envoyé : vendredi 21 mars 2025 08:13 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com > <mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>>; Benoit Claise > <benoit.claise=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org > <mailto:benoit.claise=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org>>; opsawg <opsawg@ietf.org > <mailto: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 <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> > To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org > <mailto:opsawg-le...@ietf.org> Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
