Hi Alvaro,
Thanks for your review.
Just one comment has not been discussed so far.
(5) Scope creep?
§1.2 (Audience) mentions several potential uses of this document
beyond
documenting the operational and manageability considerations for New
Protocols or Protocol Extensions, for example: "Area Director who
is in the
process of creating a new WG Charter...OPS Directorate can use this
document to guide performing reviews". But there is no guidance on
how ADs
should use the document when chartering. A reference is provided
to the
OPS Dir checklist. IMO, both potential uses should be outside the
scope of
the document.
[May be related to
https://github.com/IETF-OPSAWG-WG/draft-opsarea-rfc5706bis/issues/65]
Regarding "But there is no guidance on how ADs should use the document
when chartering", I understand that the following text is a little bit
light:
As an Area Director who is in the process of creating a new WG
Charter, this document lists some considerations of the
functionality needed to operate and manage New Protocols and
Protocol Extensions.
As previous OPS AD, I was convinced of the importance of addressing the
manageability and operational aspects early in the process (to state the
obvious). A DISCUSS, at the very last step in the process, has never
been an ideal tool to send the WG back to the drawing board.
This sentence above, which I wrote, wanted to stress that this RFC /can
/be used as input at charter creation time, with a list of "OPS things"
that the new WG & IESG in the end might be thinking about when approving
the charter text.
Before updating the text, do we agree about the intended goal?
Regards, Benoit
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
