Subject: [OPSAWG] Call for Adoption: draft-opsawg-operators-ietf

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:18:12 -0500

Dear OpsAWG,

This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-opsawg-operators-ietf.

The draft is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsawg-operators-ietf/

Please review this draft to see if you think it is suitable for
adoption by OpsAWG,
and comments to the list, clearly stating your view.

Please also indicate if you are willing to contribute text, review, etc.

This call for adoption ends Wed 21-Jan-2015.

In addition, to satisfy RFC 6702 ("Promoting Compliance with
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)"):
If you are personally aware of any IPR that applies to
draft-opsawg-operators-ietf, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance
with IETF IPR rules? (See RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669, and 5378 for more
details.)

Thanks,
Warren Kumari
(as OpsAWG WG co-chair)

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 23:52:23 +0100

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsawg-operators-ietf/

The I-D reports results from a survey. It is not a technical
specification that a working group can work on.

My recommendation would be to change the title to be more specific
that this document is a survey report and then to submit this document
as an individual submission to the RFC editor for publication. I do
not see that a WG process can add value to the survey report.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 18:10:31 -0500

I support adoption and will promise to review and contribute feedback.
This is good work, and support this outreach efforts

tim
(yet another operator)

---

From: Chris Grundemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 23:13:10 +0000

>specification that a working group can work on.

The work intended is to further analyze the results and the situation they
describe to identify additional solutions that may be actionable. These
potential actions may come from the IETF, the Operator communities around
the world, or possibly the ISOC.

Simply reporting that we have found a set of problems is only part of the
goal for this document. From the abstract:

"The primary purpose of doing this is to start a conversation which we
hope will lead to increases in the level of operational input and feedback
to the IETF standards making process."

>not see that a WG process can add value to the survey report.

We, the authors, considered that path (and had several ADs offer to
sponsor the I-D as well). We believe however that this is absolutly one
type of work the OpsAWG should take on: Building the intellectual capital
of the IETF by making it easier and more likely for implementors (read:
operators) to participate.

Cheers,
~Chris

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 12:54:06 +1300

> operators) to participate.

I agree. This is of very fundamental importance to the IETF and should
not be relegated to the Independent stream. I could imagine it being
handled by the General AD and we should encourage cross-area
participation (because, after all, the problem of operators not being
listened to is probably worse in all other areas). But as a home
for the draft, OPSAWG seems best.

    Brian

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 08:26:23 +0100

> operators) to participate.

The survey report is one thing, possible actions to change the
situation are another thing. I prefer to not mix those two together.
For example, how do we determine that "making it easier and more
likely for implementors (read: operators) to participate" has been
achieved? I am not saying this discussion is not worthwhile, do not
get me wrong on that. But I do not think that making this document a
WG document is useful. My preference still is to publish the survey
via the individual stream and discuss any possible actions to change
the situation separately. OPSAWG should allocate time for this
discussion, I do not think the survery report has to become an OPSAWG
working group item for having this discussion.

/js

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 07:51:16 +1300

Juergen,

>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
...
>>> as an individual submission to the RFC editor for publication...
...
> ... My preference still is to publish the survey
> via the individual stream... 

Please can you clarify whether your proposal is that the draft should
be handled as an individual non-WG IETF Stream document sponsored
by an AD, or as an Independent Stream submission to the RFC Editor.
Comparing your two statements above, I don't know which you mean.

Regards
  Brian

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 20:42:56 +0100

> Comparing your two statements above, I don't know which you mean.

I have not thought much about it but I perhaps an Independent Stream
submission is most appropriate. It actually remains somewhat unclear
to me _who_ conducted the survey (that is which organization was doing
the work) and what the precise involvement of the Internet Society
was. (Perhaps the Internet Society did this itself, but I just can't
tell from reading the document.) There is also not much information
(or I did not find it) about the methodology, i.e., how operators were
selected / approached and the questionaire itself. But that does not
matter for the question how to publish the result. If my understanding
is correct that the IETF was not directly involved in this survey, I
assume an Independent Stream submission may be a reasonable approach.

/js

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 15:00:22 -0500

> working group item for having this discussion.

... and I thought we should adopt this, have a very short discussion
on the results, and then quickly move to WGLC and publish it. Having
survey results (which show a number of issues, some obvious and some
surprising) as an OpsAWG document makes it clear that this is
something that we (the IETF and OpsAWG in particular) are actually
paying attention to, and are going to try and address.

The survey results look kinda like a problem statement, and having it
published by OpsAWG gives it a good home, and helps make it clear
where discussions on the "solutions" are welcome. Concerns about the
lack of operator input are not new - there have been rumblings about
it for a long, long time; making it clear that we are actually taking
this seriously, and are trying to address the issue is important. IMO,
Independent Submissions does not give that impression - for various
reasons people have the idea that IS is a stream for non-IETF
documents, or things that someone somewhere thought were vaguely
interesting, and the IETF didn't care enough about to squash or
champion.

Much of this is not a technical argument, but rather a touchy feely,
marketing argument...
W

> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:05:01 +0100

> not see that a WG process can add value to the survey report.

yep

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:10:41 -0500

Just a reminder that this closes in a week...

W

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 22:34:04 +0000

Warren wrote:

> where discussions on the "solutions" are welcome.

Hmm - I would support adoption if the WG chairs intend to make this
draft actually look like a problem statement, not just kinda.  This
could be done, by planning to add a small amount of material summarizing
the problem at the end of the draft ... where Section 5 is already
effectively a placeholder awaiting addition of that sort of material.

I have a hard time supporting draft adoption for the sole purpose of
rubber-stamping the draft with the WG's imprimatur, with effectively
no work on the draft occurring in the WG.

Thanks,
--David (who has two drafts with operator co-authors)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 3:00 PM
> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Chris Grundemann; Warren Kumari; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for Adoption: draft-opsawg-operators-ietf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: Linda Dunbar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 00:00:53 +0000

Agree with what David said. As of the now the "survey questions and answers" described in the draft doesn't have any tangible actions/impacts. 

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Black, David
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 4:34 PM
To: Warren Kumari; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Call for Adoption: draft-opsawg-operators-ietf

> where discussions on the "solutions" are welcome.

Hmm - I would support adoption if the WG chairs intend to make this draft actually look like a problem statement, not just kinda.  This could be done, by planning to add a small amount of material summarizing the problem at the end of the draft ... where Section 5 is already effectively a placeholder awaiting addition of that sort of material.

I have a hard time supporting draft adoption for the sole purpose of rubber-stamping the draft with the WG's imprimatur, with effectively no work on the draft occurring in the WG.

Thanks,

> To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Chris Grundemann; Warren Kumari; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> >> The work intended is to further analyze the results and the 
> >> situation they describe to identify additional solutions that may 
> >> be actionable. These potential actions may come from the IETF, the 
> >> Operator communities around the world, or possibly the ISOC.
> >>
> >> Simply reporting that we have found a set of problems is only part 
> >> of the goal for this document. From the abstract:
> >>
> >> "The primary purpose of doing this is to start a conversation which 
> >> we hope will lead to increases in the level of operational input 
> >> and feedback to the IETF standards making process."
> >>
> >> >that this document is a survey report and then to submit this 
> >> >document as an individual submission to the RFC editor for 
> >> >publication. I do not see that a WG process can add value to the survey report.
> >>
> >> sponsor the I-D as well). We believe however that this is absolutly 
> >> one type of work the OpsAWG should take on: Building the 
> >> intellectual capital of the IETF by making it easier and more likely for implementors (read:
> > discussion, I do not think the survery report has to become an 
> > OPSAWG working group item for having this discussion.
>

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:22:15 -0500

The  WG call for adoption for draft-opsawg-operators-ietf has finished.
Not all that many people spoke up on the list and the opinion on adoption
 was split among the people who did speak up.

If any message emerged it was that WG adoption of the ID, as-is, would not add 
much to the value of the ID.  David seemed to sum it up best:

It is the opinion of this chair (Warren having recused himself) that the ID author 
should see if he can do what David suggests (add material summarizing the 
problem at the end of the draft) and republish as a non-WG ID.  The WG can revisit 
the question of adoption after that is done.

My personal view is that this is useful information (though more details of the 
actual research would be helpful (as Juergen commented) and the IETF
 would benefit from the information being published as an RFC but it would 
mostly help if the IETF actually made use of the information in some way to 
broaden operator participation -  I am not sure how to get there from 
here (or from the ID).

Scott

---

From: Chris Grundemann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:13:08 +0000

>the question of adoption after that is done.

We can and will, although we were very much hoping to do this as more of a
community and less as two individuals. Ah well - consensus was not met...
>broaden operator participation -  I am not sure how to get there from

That¹s exactly the conversation we were hoping this working group would
have, which is of course why we submitted the document for adoption. I see
this as an opportunity missed, but we¹ll try againŠ

Disappointed in Denver,
~Chris

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:22:37 +0100

> this as an opportunity missed, but we¹ll try againŠ

I believe it makes sense to publish the survey report as an individual
submission and in addition to have discussions on possible actions and
implications in OPSAWG or OPS-AREA. Should those discussions lead to
something sensible worth documenting, this can become an OPSAWG work
item.

There is no need to adopt a document to have a conversation.

/js

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:44:15 +0000

> community and less as two individuals. Ah well - consensus was not met...

As I originally wrote, I would support adoption of this draft if the purpose was to
expand it into a problem statement, but that's not how the purpose of adopting the
draft was characterized.  With luck, the added material can make that purpose clear,
and a subsequent adoption call would have a positive outcome.

Thanks,
--David

> From: OPSAWG [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Chris Grundemann
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 10:13 AM
> To: Scott Bradner; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]