Hi Med, It is non-blocking and was something that caught my eye for potential future controverse. If it is decided to keep the text then all good for me also
G/ -----Original Message----- From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 9:55 AM To: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <gunter.van_de_ve...@nokia.com>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org Subject: RE: Gunter Van de Velde's No Objection on charter-ietf-opsawg-04-04: (with COMMENT) Hi Gunter, There are many OPS-related protocols out there for which we don't have a home (IPFIX, DIAMETER, etc.). OPSAWG should not be the place to develop major changes (e.g. new versions) of these protocols. For example, we used to have opsawg be tagged as maintenance group for RADIUS (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/radext/ygSshqCzKe0uN5aPiN08U_k-gx8/). I wasn't personally happy with that at the time for the reasons mentioned in that thread. Happily, RADEXT was resurrected since then and has its own WG (which is the right thing to do). I suggest we keep "minor" to make the scope clear. We can characterize it if needed, though. Thank you. Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Envoyé : > lundi 14 avril 2025 09:25 À : The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc : > opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org Objet : Gunter Van de Velde's > No Objection on charter-ietf-opsawg- > 04-04: (with COMMENT) > > > Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-opsawg-04-04: 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.) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This charter is refreshingly short, clear in its objective, and keeps > things nice and simple. Just a small comment on the text: > > " > Examples include the advancement of documents on the standards track, > application statements, maintenance, and minor extensions of documents > that were developed in working groups that have concluded, e.g., > IPFIX, network or service level YANG modules, and tools for the > Operations and Management Area. " > > The word "minor" caught my attention. It might be open to > interpretation and could lead to debates later on about what qualifies > as "minor" versus something more substantial. Would it make sense to > drop that word to avoid any unnecessary restrictions or ambiguity down > the line? > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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
