I will try to provide useful feedback, and I hope my co-chairs will as
well. I appreciate your taking the time to put the below message
together, as it provides much clearer context as to what you are looking
for.
Part of the problem is that I have no idea what new work the working
group will want to do that is not in current adopted or individual
drafts. But I am quite sure there will be such new work. Which leads
to the fair question "how do we as chairs know if the work is within
charter?" I will provide my answer in informal text, and it helps then
we can work out what charter language should be added to reflect it.
The general answer is that we consider it within scope if it is about
using SR (MPLS or v6) to do something. Thus, the security document
falls squarely in scope, as its goal is to describe out one should, and
should not, use SRv6 to maintain appropriate security. The YANG models
are a stretch, but since netmod and netconf have been very clear tha
thtey do not want to own all YANG models, we treat YANG models for SR as
ways of configuring SR, and thus ways of usign SR.
Conversely, changes to other protocols are generally out of scope. We
do not define the OSPF or IS-IS encodings for carrying information about
SR.
We tried to make those limits clear, but it sounds like we did not succeed.
I note that we are now applying the additional limit that there has to
be enough WG engagement to legitimately claim WG support at the various
stages. But I believe we have agreed that is not a matter for the charter.
I suspect I have not answered your core questions, but maybe this note
will help us make progress. At the end, you ask why the charter is
being revised. That has a specific answer, which I suspect is no help.
When the IESG chartered SRv6OPS we were asked to recharter spring to
make clear the boundary between SRv6Ops and spring. We have tried to do
that. (If it were not for that text in the charter, as far as I
personally can tell, everything in SRv6Ops would also fit in spring,
which is why we were asked to clarify that.)
Yours,
Joel
On 1/24/2025 3:52 PM, Roman Danyliw wrote:
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
