Subject: Re: [tcmtf] Improved version of the TCMTF Charter proposal (v3)

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:07:48 +0100

Wes and everybody,

Thanks for your feedback and support.

I have rebuilt the Charter (now it is v4, and it is in the next e-mail)
taking into account Mirko's and Matteo's improvements, and the suggestions
of Wes.

Paragraph 10 has been modified according to Matteo's improvements
Paragraph 8 has been modified according to Mirko's improvements

And regarding the suggestions of Wes:

(1) In my opinion, it focuses too much on documents to be produced,
>     rather than fully and clearly motivating why the working group
>     is needed (i.e. to solve a problem, not to develop documents)
I have added paragraphs 2 and 3 in order to set this clear. And now,
paragraph 5 does not talk about documents, but only about the solution

>     how it's scope is delimited (i.e. what it *won't* touch isn't
>     clear to me, along with what other areas/WGs need to be
>     coordinated with), and what the end-goal is.
Paragraph 5 talks about this: "(...) Interactions with the Working Groups
and Areas in which these protocols are developed can be expected. However,
the development of new compressing, multiplexing or tunneling protocols is
not an objective of this Working Group."

> (2) There's a focus on defining technical solutions prior to the
>     mention of fleshing out and totally defining the use cases /
>     requirements.  In my opinion, that appears backwards :).
Paragraph 2 is now about the use cases.

Best regards,

Jose
-------------------
 
> That said, I'm generally supportive of this work.  In my opinion, as an
AD, we
> would normally feel better having a BoF before forming a WG, for two
> reasons (1) to get other areas (e.g. RAI) to be aware of what's being
> proposed, and (2) to vet that there really is a community of stakeholders
that
> are engaged to do the work.  In this case, I think the 2nd point is
evident
> from the mailing list, and I don't have a concern about it at all.  I
think the 1st
> point can be addressed through the responsible AD coordinating with the
> IESG and the directorates or area mailing lists that related areas have.
> Since I'm going away as an AD though, what really matters at the moment is
> what Martin thinks :).
> 
> --
> Wes Eddy
> MTI Systems