Hi! It's nice to see I2NSF on the formal meeting agenda again. I see discussions on the mailing list to again revisit the WG charter [3] and it's on the agenda for this week's IETF 113 meeting. I don't want my position at the meeting to come as a surprise so I'll restate what I've previously said in November 2020 [1] and October 2021 [2] on a new I2NSF charter:
** By all means, please use the WG to discuss I2NSF and the associated ecosystem. ** With the degree of discussion and review demonstrated in the last two years by the WG on I2NSF documents, these is not sufficient WG participation to take on new work. It remains unclear if there is even enough energy to finish the currently charted documents. Given the current WG dynamics, I will not support a new charter. ** Rechartering the WG would first require all previously promised deliverables (all 5 YANG modules) to be complete (at the RFC Editor), and then amongst other things, the identification of a critical mass of additional WG participants (beyond document authors/their organizations) committed to reviewing and implementing the work. Next steps would be heavily dependent on the specifics of the new work being proposed. To the specific charter text [3], a few high level questions: (a) This seems like a lot of work that equal to, if not larger than, the original WG scope which the WG is having difficulty finishing. Given that I2NSF has been unable to publish any of its core protocol deliverables in the last 6.5 years (chartered September 2015), is this the right size of new work to consider? Why is there bandwidth to do new work, but not finish the existing work? (b) This seems like a significant expansion into areas that I2NSF has not worked on -- DLT, PQ Crypto, attestation, etc. This begs questions such as whether a new WG is more appropriate. Why is I2NSF the right place? (c) Correct me if I'm wrong, it's my understanding that there isn't commercial adoption (or a substantial user base) of I2NSF yet. If that's true, what role will this new work play in increasing the likelihood of adoption? Why does this additional work have to happen now rather than waiting for more operational experience? Regards, Roman [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/FBzpXwPUaY5PkcgvKpWnHAAanp4/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/GAqtySDhTlhgPGMh_MdaajApUDs/ [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2nsf/XQxOoQS9JkJ0hDeICISHEl8QasE/ _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list I2nsf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
