Subject: [Dcpel] FWD: [Re: proposed charter]

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 21:56:37 -0800

[ I did not CC all (in the future) involved ADs in my previous mail ]

Kathie asked me whether I would be willing to share the following mail
with the group on my current thinking regarding a bof for dcepl.

I obviously have no problem with that so please see below for my mail
to Kathie regarding this topic. I, and the other ADs CC'ed on this
mail, are interested in your comments.

I hope this helps,

David Kessens
---

----- Forwarded message from David Kessens <[email-masked]> -----

Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 20:58:32 -0800
From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
To: Kathleen Nichols <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: proposed charter

Kathie,

On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 10:51:34AM -0800, Kathleen Nichols wrote:
> 
> Attached is a draft charter. Scott and Paulo haven't had a
> chance to weigh in on it, so I might get some good input
> there. I would hope to have better milestones after an
> organizational meeting or BoF.

I am sorry for the delay in my response. We normally spend some time
to do an internal review with the IAB and IESG and I was waiting for
Allison who promised comments.

I am sympathic to the goals of this proposed work and I have received
various comments from the IAB stating so.

However, I also received comments that this work could be conflicting
with existing IETF work in the NSIS and TSV working group.

While the proposed charter doesn't necessarily would require protocol
work, the drafts that I read would more or less require this. As you
know, the Ops part of the Ops&Mgmt area usually doesn't do protocol
work and limits itself to issues that are relevant to the operations
of the Internet. In addition, to make sure that things are relevant
for operators, we normally want to have feedback, support and
involvement from operators to avoid situations where vendors build all
kind of complex solutions for problems that operators don't have.

So far, I have seen some support from academia, research efforts
within larger corporations and some vendors, but I have seen little
evidence that this group is going to solve a problem that operators
want to be solved. As I already mentioned in an earlier mail, I am
really somewhat surprised that I haven't seen any operator on the list
commenting that we need to start this work as I did expect that myself.

Considering these issues, I think that it probably is not in your best
interest to pursue a bof for this IETF.

We will first need a much clearer answer on what problem is going to
be solved *for operators*, get real support from operators behind this
effort and after that we need to figure out whether that solution will
involve protocol work or not.

You can probably convince me to hold a bof anyways but considering
the above stumbling blocks, I would advise you not to do so.

David Kessens
---

_______________________________________________
Dcpel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcpel