Subject: [Dots] WG draft editors & next steps

From: Tobias Gondrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 23:45:44 +0200

Dear DOTS team,

thank you for the discussions and ideas being posted here on the 
mailing-list and at our last WG meeting in Prague.

Your help and work is greatly appreciated!

Roman and I had a conversation last week with Roman and we like to 
propose the following teams as co-editors for our WG use case and 
requirements draft.

*For the use case draft **(in alphabetical order)**:
*Daniel ([email-masked]), Frank 
([email-masked]), Nik ([email-masked]), Roland 
([email-masked]) and Stefan ([email-masked]),

*For the requirements draft **(in alphabetical order): **
*Andrew ([email-masked]), Bob ([email-masked]) and Tiru 
([email-masked])

In fact there were many more great volunteers, but we had to limit the 
editor teams to ensure they will work effective. We believe, diverse 
groups can bring a good multitude of view points and make sure that we 
capture the full range of use cases and requirements from the 
contributions in the WG. And thereby avoid ignoring or forgetting use 
cases that may not be relevant for their own individual organisation.

*I like to explicitly remind everyone that one of the main tasks of 
draft editors is **in the first priority **to fulfil WG consensus.* That 
means we serve the WG, of which we naturally can also be a contributing 
part. But editors are not dictating the results nor are they in any way 
superior in interpretation of text or decisions only because they edited 
the draft for our WG. Everyone within the WG is equally welcome and 
encouraged to contribute to the drafts with ideas and feedback. For 
people from outside of IETF, this editor role definition may be a bit 
unusual, but please keep this in mind when you work on the draft.

*And please also do take note of the IETF Note Well as it applies to all 
IETF contributions: **https://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html**
***
All of the technical discussions should be on the mailing-list to allow 
for open discussions and that all WG members can participate equally. 
And so that we can measure WG consensus in cases of disagreements and 
make sure that all concerns have been addressed.
Of course everyone is free to talk on- or off-list, but for WG 
discussions the mailing-list is the right place to go.
If the editors like, they can use the IETF issue tracker to help manage 
and resolve lists of issues. In fact, I recommend it, as other WGs have 
made good experience with it.

*We also intend to progress ASAP to the resulting protocol 
specifications. (open for volunteer**s**).* In our current plan we 
started now work on the requirements and use cases drafts. And soon 
after, anytime from now, we can start working on protocol drafts. We do 
not have to wait until we publish the first drafts as RFCs before we 
could start with the protocols, but rather intend to progress on several 
fronts in parallel.
So if you have certain protocols or protocol extensions in mind in order 
to fulfil the requirements and use cases currently being worked on, 
please feel free to submit anytime. There is no need to wait for the 
finishing of the first documents to go to RFC.

*So what are the next steps:
0. We strongly encourage all WG participants to submit your ideas and 
contributions.
* 1. We plan to have an interim meeting end of September to allow for 
presentation and discussion of progress on these two drafts and other 
draft ideas coming up. For this we shall send around a date proposal in 
the next few days.
2. We will have a WG meeting at IETF 94 in Yokohama, begin of November.
3. We are considering to set up something like open design teams (one 
for use cases and one for requirements) where people could join freely 
based on their interest. The design teams would be open and informal, 
per draft and would not have separate mailing-lists. All technical email 
discussions shall remain on the WG mailing-list, but you may have design 
team meetings using skype or other remote conference tools to advance 
complicated discussions. We hope some co-editors could help organising 
such calls for the design team if the WG wishes so.

And last but not least, let me say thank you again to all contributors 
and volunteers so far and I am very much looking forward to our exciting 
work together in DOTS and our future protocol specification results.

Best regards,

Tobias and Roman
(DOTS WG chairs)