Hi Joel! Apologies for my delayed response. I appreciate your explanation below.
The practicality of your response, the adopted documents help guide the scope, makes sense for a day-to-day understanding of what the WG is doing, but less so for the bounds of a charter. Let me try to be more concrete. The charter text has helpful language around coordination and what SR means, but the in terms of bounds, I see: ==[ snip ]== The SPRING WG is responsible for defining new applications for, and specifying extensions to, Segment Routing technologies. It also serves as a forum to discuss the operational aspects of deploying and managing SR-MPLS networks. ==[ snip ]== If I look at the currently adopted WG documents and the new charter text, I would struggle to understand how the YANG documents (draft-ietf-spring-sr-policy-yang or draft-ietf-spring-srv6-yang) would be in scope. Neither seems like an extension or application. Same question for draft-ietf-spring-stamp-srpm or draft-ietf-spring-srv6-security. It seems like "extension" is doing a lot of heavy lifting on what it might be. Is it possible to be clearer? Are there protocol extensions to do? OAM protocol work to do? Are there deployment considerations to document? I don't want to over index on the presence or absence of milestones because as you said those should be evolved by the WG. However, practically, Section 5 of RFC2418 does say that they should renegotiated during rechartering. I'm looking for some signal of what new work will be done as part of this recharter. If that can't enumerated, then I need help understanding why the charter is being changed. Regards, Roman -----Original Message----- From: Joel Halpern <j...@joelhalpern.com> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2024 11:25 AM To: Roman Danyliw <r...@cert.org>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: spring-cha...@ietf.org; spring@ietf.org Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's Block on charter-ietf-spring-02-03: (with BLOCK and COMMENT) Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Yes,the charter is open-ended. Note that while milestones in a charter can be informative, they are not limiting.Updating them does not require IESG approval. In terms of what constitutes the current work of the working group, the best answer is the datatracker for what work has been adopted, including what status each of those documents has. To augment that, the chairs and secretary maintain a wiki page with a list of requested WG adoption calls and request WG last calls. As per the policy on the wiki policy page, we do not commit to isssueing either of those. As for what work we might undertake, you can see the lsit of drafts which have been proposed to the WG on the datatracker. Trying to condense and capture that work in nmilestones in the charter does nto seem likely to help anyone. As for when we are done... On one level, we are done when our AD tells us we are done. An indication would be a significant decrease in active drafts and active discussion. Given the nature of the combined maintenance and enhancement work, it seems unlikely this will occur in the near future. Yours, Joel On 12/14/2024 8:33 AM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote: > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > charter-ietf-spring-02-03: Block > > 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-spring/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > BLOCK: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > (3) What is the new work to be done and what are the bounds? > > The charter seems extremely open-ended. With this new charter text > and absence of milestones, it isn’t clear what new work the WG will > pursue or even what the bounds are to judge that a given topic is > in/out of scope (beyond being SR related). The primary bounding text I > see is "The SPRING WG is responsible for defining new applications > for, and specifying extensions to, Segment Routing technologies. It > also serves as a forum to discuss the operational aspects of deploying and > managing SR-MPLS networks." > > What is an example of an application the WG will work on right now? > What are the extensions? Am I correct in assuming there is a > maintenance role for extensions? What are the first several that need > to be worked on known now to motivate this WG? Can those be added as > milestones? > > When is the WG “done”? > > Can this need for latitude be further explained? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you to Alvaro Retana for his explanation on trust domains. > > Thank you for the revision which clarified how new work would be accepted. > > > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list -- spring@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to spring-le...@ietf.org
