Subject: [Iotops] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-iotops-00-09: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 05:53:28 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-iotops-00-09: 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-iotops/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) I agree with Alvaro that the reference to RFC 8799 is not appropriate in
this charter. Using the well understood "administrative domain" terminology
would be better.

(2) The charter contains some contradictory language about its scope. Looking
at this:

"The IETF is or has worked on a number of technologies related to IoT. These
include work done in ANIMA, CBOR, CORE, DRIP, LAKE, LPWAN, LWIG, ROLL, SUIT,
and 6TISCH.  IOTOPS is intended to be a discussion venue where people can
discuss how the various technologies developed in these WGs fit together, what
gaps remain, what has been learnt from deploying these, etc.

IOTOPS will solicit input on IoT-device-related operational issues and
practices, and existing and proposed technologies related to the deployment,
operational management, and lifecycle management of IoT devices.  IOTOPS
provides a venue for IoT experts and other interested parties to engage in
discussions of IoT requirements of networking standards, as well as proposals
for new uses of IP technology in IoT specific scenarios."

Comparing this to the numbered list of work areas at the end of the charter, it
seems that the objective is to be much more focused than the text above
implies. I would suggest some edits to the text above, condensing down to one
paragraph:

The IETF is or has worked on a number of technologies related to IoT. These
include work done in ANIMA, CBOR, CORE, DRIP, LAKE, LPWAN, LWIG, ROLL, SUIT,
and 6TISCH. IOTOPS will solicit input on IoT-device-related operational issues
and practices, and existing and proposed technologies related to the
deployment, operational management, and lifecycle management of IoT devices. 
IOTOPS provides a venue for IoT experts and other interested parties to engage
in discussions of operational IoT requirements, as well as proposals for new
uses of IP technology related to IoT device and network operations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

s/The IETF is or has worked on/The IETF works on/

OLD
These include work done in ANIMA, CBOR, CORE, DRIP, LAKE, LPWAN, LWIG, ROLL,
SUIT, and 6TISCH.

NEW
This includes work done in ANIMA, CBOR, CORE, DRIP, LAKE, LPWAN, LWIG, ROLL,
SUIT, 6TISCH, and other working groups.

Is the list of WGs supposed to be limited or exhaustive? In addition to the
missing ones others have pointed out there is TEEP.

OLD
Revision, updates, and extensions related to existing WGs will be done in those
WGs.

NEW
Revision, updates, and extensions related to work in existing WGs will be done
in those WGs.

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 16:36:56 +0100

Alissa, Alvaro, *:

"administrative domain" is IMHO not a good equivalent for "limited domain"
because in general an "administrative domain" could be interpreted as
an Internet administrative domain, and for that a lot of Internet requirements
apply. Such as for example everything related to congestion control.

I thought to remember that before rfc8799 introduced the term
"limited domain" that we referred to these type of networks as
"controlled networks".

But actually, trying to find a reference, i would suggest potentially this here:

RFC8085 - "UDP Usage Guidelines"

Section 3.6:  "Controlled Environments"

just as a suggestion. E.g.: "controlld environments"

(i personally like "controlled" a lot better than "limited".., but matter of opinion)

Cheers
    toerless

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 05:53:28AM -0800, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote:
> -- 
> Iotops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iotops

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 11:06:40 -0500

Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > practices, and existing and proposed technologies related to the
    > deployment, operational management, and lifecycle management of IoT
    > devices.  IOTOPS provides a venue for IoT experts and other interested
    > parties to engage in discussions of IoT requirements of networking
    > standards, as well as proposals for new uses of IP technology in IoT
    > specific scenarios."

    > Comparing this to the numbered list of work areas at the end of the
    > charter, it seems that the objective is to be much more focused than
    > the text above implies. I would suggest some edits to the text above,
    > condensing down to one paragraph:

yes, hardly surprising since many points below were removed :-)

    > Is the list of WGs supposed to be limited or exhaustive? In addition to
    > the missing ones others have pointed out there is TEEP.

Not exhaustive, maybe prefix with e.g.

    > OLD Revision, updates, and extensions related to existing WGs will be
    > done in those WGs.

    > NEW Revision, updates, and extensions related to work in existing WGs
    > will be done in those WGs.

I don't object, but I don't hold the pen.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:10:02 +0000

Hi Alissa,

Warren and I have had a go at updating the text (multiple times due to it being unhappy with rendering our first list) to try and address your block and the other comments, please can you check the latest charter text to see if it resolves your block.

Thanks,
Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: 21 January 2021 16:07
> To: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; The IESG <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Iotops] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-iotops-00-09:
> (with BLOCK and COMMENT)
> 
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 08:39:04 +1300

On 22-Jan-21 02:53, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote:
...

> this charter. Using the well understood "administrative domain" terminology

fwiw, I am quite happy with the approved text "limited administrative domains".
However, one of the implications of RFC 8799 is precisely that it isn't
sufficient to limit (or control) a domain administratively. We actually need
some secure technology to do so automatically. There's an attempt to state
rqeuirements for that at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8799.html#name-functional-requirements-of-

Regards
   Brian