Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-09 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
It seems appropriate that this working group doesn't have any specific milestones at this point.
We really need to create this WG ASAP ;-) Three comments though: 1) do not forget 6LO, COSE in the list of IoT-related WG (and possibly DETNET & DTN ?) 2) split "Publish operational practice and document requirements." into two bullets "Publish operational practices" + "document requirements." 3) should the leading "Taking input and discussing issues " also be used for the security ? Hope this helps -éric
Thanks for addressing my concerns. The edit below was left out and I think it would make this charter more crisp but it's more editorial. OLD IOTOPS provides a venue for IoT experts and other interested parties to engage in discussions of IoT requirements of networking standards, as well as proposals for new uses of IP technology in IoT specific scenarios. NEW IOTOPS provides a venue for IoT experts and other interested parties to engage in discussions of operational IoT requirements, as well as proposals for new uses of IP technology related to IoT device and network operations.
+ACE to the list of IoT WGs
nit: "is worked on" doesn't scan, so we probably want "is working on or has worked on". We could also do "include but are not limited to" for the list of WGs but that's probably implied. nit: (3) should start with "Publishing" for parallel structure.
(1) "within (e.g., RFC 8799) limited domains" While I like rfc8799 a lot, it is not an IETF consensus document. Making reference to it in a charter, even as an example, seems problematic to me. Taking the reference out should still be clear enough. (2) Revision, updates, and extensions related to existing WGs will be done in those WGs. Where new protocols may be needed, IOTOPS will help identify candidate venues within IETF for their development. What about revisions, updates, or extensions to technology related to closed WG -- or where new protocols are not needed? I assume the answer is the same (IOTOPS will help identify...); it would be nice for it to be explicit. (3) "Discussing issues related to IoT operational security." It seems to me that "operational security" could be added as another bullet in item 1 without any loss in meaning. Is there a specific reason for it to be called out separately that is not obvious from the text? (4) "Publish operational practice and document requirements." It is not clear to me whether the expectation is to publish (in an RFC) the requirements or just document them (in a draft) so they can be passed on to where solutions will be worked on. [nits] s/The IOTOPS Working Group is for the discussion/The IOTOPS Working Group is chartered for the discussion There's a mismatch between "devices that are:" and the bullets: "networked...have...are". s/devices that are/devices that s/networked/are networked s/extensions related to existing WGs/extensions to technology related to existing WGs